holy shiet.

congrats!!

Stingy ranking meps is dis real lief?

my boy stingy <3

congrats ! !

do you really need combo colors that render it impossible to see the approach circles on 90 dim lmao

really dumb imo..

gratz on first ranked though!

gratz on ranking 44 seconds of a 3 minute song

congrats

bamf when
grats btw /w/

After a long time, you finally did it! Pretty much deserved award! \:3/ Congratulations!

gratsu

Good job

Gratzz for your first ranked map! >w</

Renumi wrote:

uh

wot blanket 00:12:950 (1,2) - in hard

Inb4 DQ

dq pls player experience is at risk how can we advance and grow more as a community of mappers and players when this is made present as official in game content I am unironically disgusted someone please do something about this as I feel extremely uncomfortable having said issue in this map how did two bns look at this pattern or diff if at all no disrespecterino and allow i feel so humiliated to be a part of this community I'm done I'm leaving this game goodbye I can't

Renumi wrote:

dq pls player experience is at risk how can we advance and grow more as a community of mappers and players when this is made present as official in game content I am unironically disgusted someone please do something about this as I feel extremely uncomfortable having said issue in this map how did two bns look at this pattern or diff if at all no disrespecterino and allow i feel so humiliated to be a part of this community I'm done I'm leaving this game goodbye I can't

"disrespecterino"

Hi I have some concerns about some of the difficulties.

[LGV]

1. Firstly, why does LGV's Hyper use kicksliders, but the topdiff doesn't? Kicksliders are generally considered difficult, and if they're used in a lower diff doesn't it make sense to use it in the higher diff? That said, the usage in LGV's diff is really hard to play anyways, because the kicksliders like 00:28:950 (1) - are emphasizing a held sound, which makes little sense if any. These specific ones should all be 1/2 sliders like the top diff if you really want my opinion on it. 00:31:750 (1,2) - are fine for reference.
2. 00:40:150 (5) - NC? Not many 1-downbeat combos go over 4 for the most part, so this looks really weird, especially when the downbeat isn't NC'd.

Now for the real concerns:

[Top Diff]

1. 00:22:550 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - There is no 1/4 in this part, and the hitsounds are not appropriate for this either. They sound really harsh and are on every 1/4 beat. This shouldn't be a stream in the first place.
2. 00:27:750 (1) - so you use one NC structure here that seems to be on every strong bass beat, which is fine, by all means do that. But it's inconsistent with 00:32:150 (1) - this part of the song, where you do it every downbeat. As you said in the comments of your map, the rhythm is boring and there are no interesting changes, thus the NC structure should be kept similar.
3. 00:25:750 (1) - 00:26:950 (1) - 00:27:750 (1) - so these make sense because they're on the bass kick or whatever, which is fine, but then 00:28:950 (1,2) - shouldn't this be a slider to keep the rhythm consistent? Same goes for 00:35:350 (1,2).
   
   1. 00:41:750 - From here the rhythm structure completely changes from following the bass kicks to... something else? What is it following? If you're gonna say the snares then 00:46:350 (6) - should be a slider. Either way, changing the whole rhythm of the map while the song is still the same (the only change is the pitch, the rhythm is still the same) is inconsistent and should be changed.
4. 00:48:150 (1,2,3,4) - Mapped with much lower density despite being the buildup to the end of the cut, should all be 1/2 because you weren't against doing that in the beginning 00:19:350 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) -
5. As a general point, the map flows really awkwardly in my opinion due to how you put some of the sliders, like what is 00:33:750 (1,2,3) - this or 00:35:350 (1,2,3,4,5,6) -? This is really bad flow especially considering you don't do it consistently. If you intend to emphasize a sound with uncomfortable flow, all instances of that sound should be mapped the same. That isn't the case considering 00:31:350 (2,3,4) - 00:30:550 (2,3,1) - Generally the flow isn't consistent enough. EDIT: Okay maybe I wasn't really clear here, but what I mean with uncomfortable is the slider velocity used is generally slower than the speed at which the player is jumping, and when you move to a sliderhead through it's own body you're going to be moving backwards through said body. If the speed at which you enter is slower than that which you follow the slider in, the flow would seem uncomfortable. That's exactly what's going on here. Sorry if this wasn't clear enough before.
6. Also, I'm not one to moan about aesthetics, but the visual distance between objects in places makes the map look really bad, some examples: 00:33:750 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - 00:30:950 (1,2,3,4) - 00:30:150 (1,2,3,1) - (3 should be stacked under the first 1's tail actually, but whatever) Also: http://i.imgur.com/Iw239RD.jpg Should say enough really, you didn't use the space given to you, and thus the map looks cluttered and the aesthetic suffers because of that.
7. Concerning the "theme" here, which seems to be back-and-forth as you told me months ago when I checked this map, it's executed inconsistently. 00:34:550 (4,5,6) - Should be back-and-forth too and 00:44:950 (1,2,3,4) too etc.
8. And the final point is object placement seems really, really random, like I can barely see patterns if I tried to. Examples: 00:25:750 (1,4,1) - 00:29:950 (5,1,2,3,1) - 00:33:750 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - 00:49:750 (1,2,3,4) - and the patterns you do try to make eg. 00:43:350 (1,2,3,4) - are executed really poorly and could definitely be improved.

[Hard]

1. 00:13:750 (3,4) - Consistently misplaced emphasis. 3 is clearly stronger than 4, but 3 has less emphasis than 4? 00:15:350 (7,8,1) - Same for this, 1 is clearly stronger, but 8 is emphasized more for some reason.
2. 00:20:950 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - Is this supposed to be a pattern? What about this 00:19:350 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - ? I can't see anything clearly recognizable. It looks really, really random.
3. 00:22:550 (1,2,3) - Again, clearly no 1/4 here but mapped 1/4.
4. 00:35:750 (3,4,5,6,1,2) - This is just ugly. 00:36:150 (5,1) - Is never done anywhere else either.
5. 00:40:950 (5) - Reason for skipping these beats? There's no special sound to emphasize here.
6. Same complaints about the aesthetics as the topdiff, this difficulty actually uses the playfield better, so that's good. But 00:28:150 (4,5,6,7,1) - this could be tidied up as one of the few patterns in this diff. 00:31:350 (4,5,6,1) - No equal visual spacing whatsoever. 00:35:350 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1) - Do I even have to comment on this one?

Stacks in Advanced: 00:43:350 (5,4) - 00:46:550 (1,5) -

I could keep saying the same sort of things about the lower difficulties, so I'll stop here with the specifics.

Generally this mapset does not seem to have any structure whatsoever in terms of aesthetic or theme in general. Somehow this got qualified so there must be some reasoning behind this, but reading the thread I'm not really convinced in all honesty.

Mir wrote:

stuff

Uhm where were you before this was qualified
It seems you only care now that it's qualified
You could've mentioned this before
You know, like before it was qualified and stuff

Stingy wrote:

Mir wrote:

stuff

Uhm where were you before this was qualified
It seems you only care now that it's qualified
You could've mentioned this before
You know, like before it was qualified and stuff

Irrelevant.

It matters more now that it is qualified, whether I noticed before or not really doesn't matter. When a map is qualified, it's put out for the whole community to judge it. Don't blame me for modding your map, you should blame your map for making me mod it.

Also, shouldn't the current offset have -15 to the current timing or so? I feel like it's a tad off.

sorry stingy, but I have to agree with Mir.


I think Mir explains all of the points in my previous mods in a much more constructive way + more

actually agree as well /: (soz)

Mir wrote:

Don't blame me for modding your map, you should blame your map for making me mod it.

Why should we blame anyone? A mod is a mod, you make it sound like something negative, yet, the whole point of having a map qualified is to get more people to check it. Getting a map disqualified is not a bad thing, ignoring potential ways to improve the map is.

Please, reply to the suggestions properly, Stingy. It is perfectly fine to agree with the modder as well as to disagree with them. Try to be reasonable and focus on quality rather than on keeping an icon.

I don't think we need "I agree" comments here, unless you have something else to add to the points discussed. Thank you for the feedback, though. I'll leave the rest up to the mapper.

Bakari wrote:

Mir wrote:

Don't blame me for modding your map, you should blame your map for making me mod it.

Why should we blame anyone? A mod is a mod, you make it sound like something negative, yet, the whole point of having a map qualified is to get more people to check it. Getting a map disqualified is not a bad thing, ignoring potential ways to improve the map is.

True, it's not a bad thing. But the way Stingy replied was very accusative, and I didn't really appreciate that. I apologize.

I'll give these suggestions a look as well, give me some time. Probably later today.

okay so like for real


your emphasis on the top diff is completely fucking random and nonsensical and it doesn't seem to know when to use 1/2 sliders and when to spam circles and there's literally no coherence or relevance to the song.


You should really go over the map and actually note where the synth is weaker or straight up doesn't exist and actually re-do the map so that the 1/2 sliders are actually following the squeaky melody rather than......whatever completely messed up jumble you have right now.


Just because the map is playable and plays fine doesn't mean it's good or even follows the music. This is a shitdump song, but doesn't need to have a shitdump map.

Getting a disqualification is not always a bad thing, why most mappers with their first qualified try to avoid that so much :shrugs:
Anyway congrats, hope for the best.

Stingy wrote:

Mir wrote:

Hi I have some concerns about some of the difficulties.

[LGV]

1. Firstly, why does LGV's Hyper use kicksliders, but the topdiff doesn't? Kicksliders are generally considered difficult, and if they're used in a lower diff doesn't it make sense to use it in the higher diff? That said, the usage in LGV's diff is really hard to play anyways, because the kicksliders like 00:28:950 (1) - are emphasizing a held sound, which makes little sense if any. These specific ones should all be 1/2 sliders like the top diff if you really want my opinion on it. 00:31:750 (1,2) - are fine for reference. I don't think I like kicksliders in my map. That's why I didn't put them. It was his GD, so his style is going to be different That doesn't really disvalue the point about spread though. Just because it's a GD doesn't mean it should use more difficult elements than in higher difficulties.
2. 00:40:150 (5) - NC? Not many 1-downbeat combos go over 4 for the most part, so this looks really weird, especially when the downbeat isn't NC'd.

Now for the real concerns:

[Top Diff]

1. 00:22:550 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - There is no 1/4 in this part, and the hitsounds are not appropriate for this either. They sound really harsh and are on every 1/4 beat. This shouldn't be a stream in the first place. There are 1/4. Okay, so there may be 1/4. Why blend both the drum, tick tick noise (idk what it's called the gross sound lol), and the barely noticeable background sounds into a fully clickable stream that has the highest aim and tapping strain in the map.
2. 00:27:750 (1) - so you use one NC structure here that seems to be on every strong bass beat, which is fine, by all means do that. But it's inconsistent with 00:32:150 (1) - this part of the song, where you do it every downbeat. As you said in the comments of your map, the rhythm is boring and there are no interesting changes, thus the NC structure should be kept similar. The NCs follow the higher synth. Then follow the higher synth in the beginning? My point still stands, the rhythm is the same, only the pitch changes. NCs are mainly used to indicate a change in rhythm, not in pitch.
3. 00:25:750 (1) - 00:26:950 (1) - 00:27:750 (1) - so these make sense because they're on the bass kick or whatever, which is fine, but then 00:28:950 (1,2) - shouldn't this be a slider to keep the rhythm consistent? Same goes for 00:35:350 (1,2).
   
   1. 00:41:750 - From here the rhythm structure completely changes from following the bass kicks to... something else? What is it following? If you're gonna say the snares then 00:46:350 (6) - should be a slider. Either way, changing the whole rhythm of the map while the song is still the same (the only change is the pitch, the rhythm is still the same) is inconsistent and should be changed. You can hear this rhythm in the music. Although it's the same, you can "hear" the emphasis differently in the music.
   Fair enough (however threadbare your argument seems), but the way it's mapped doesn't provide any emphasis whatsoever through object placement, and makes the already repetitive map even more repetitive, and this is a fundamental flaw in your map.
4. 00:48:150 (1,2,3,4) - Mapped with much lower density despite being the buildup to the end of the cut, should all be 1/2 because you weren't against doing that in the beginning 00:19:350 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - The map is about to end. Why hype it up? That's exactly why you hype it up though, the song itself is hyping it up. If you're going to follow the song accurately you're going to map a build up here, not 1/1 circle jumps.
5. As a general point, the map flows really awkwardly in my opinion due to how you put some of the sliders, like what is 00:33:750 (1,2,3) - this (3) point to (4).or 00:35:350 (1,2,3,4,5,6) -? This flow uses directional emphasis. It actually is consistent. 00:28:950 (1,2,3) - No directional emphasis, 00:34:550 (4,5,6) - no directional emphasis, 00:42:950 (5,6,1,2) - no sharp movements, really comfortable, not directional emphasis, 00:44:550 (5,6,1) - not strong enough to really be "emphasis" since all sounds are emphasized the same. This is really bad flow especially considering you don't do it consistently. If you intend to emphasize a sound with uncomfortable flow, all instances of that sound should be mapped the same. That isn't the case considering 00:31:350 (2,3,4) - 00:30:550 (2,3,1) - Generally the flow isn't consistent enough. ? I really don't see a problem with any of this Yeah, well I just explained it.
6. Also, I'm not one to moan about aesthetics, but the visual distance between objects in places makes the map look really bad, some examples: 00:33:750 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - 00:30:950 (1,2,3,4) - 00:30:150 (1,2,3,1) - (3 should be stacked under the first 1's tail actually, but whatever That make it hard to read and there's no change for direction; the change is what I wanted.) - Yeah but it's not hard to read and you LITERALLY JUST SAID YOU WANTED DIRECTIONAL EMPHASIS. Also: http://i.imgur.com/Iw239RD.jpg Should say enough really, you didn't use the space given to you, and thus the map looks cluttered and the aesthetic suffers because of that.
7. Concerning the "theme" here, which seems to be back-and-forth as you told me months ago when I checked this map, it's executed inconsistently. 00:34:550 (4,5,6) - Should be back-and-forth too and 00:44:950 (1,2,3,4) too etc. Not back-and-forth, it's "sharp". - Fair enough, but look above and I pointed out areas where it's clearly not sharp movement.
8. And the final point is object placement seems really, really random, like I can barely see patterns if I tried to. Examples: 00:25:750 (1,4,1) - where's the problem? 00:29:950 (5,1,2,3,1) - ?00:33:750 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - ?? 00:49:750 (1,2,3,4) - and the patterns you do try to make eg. 00:43:350 (1,2,3,4) - are executed really poorly and could definitely be improved. - So you don't see a problem with SEEMINGLY RANDOMLY PLACED NOTES.

[Hard]

1. 00:13:750 (3,4) - Consistently misplaced emphasis. 3 is clearly stronger than 4, but 3 has less emphasis than 4? 00:15:350 (7,8,1) - Same for this, 1 is clearly stronger, but 8 is emphasized more for some reason. Emphasis is directional
2. 00:20:950 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - Is this supposed to be a pattern? What about this 00:19:350 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - ? I can't see anything clearly recognizable. It looks really, really random. No not really - "No, no, it's not really supposed to be a pattern." Then it's badly mapped, period. Everything should be related to everything else somehow through patterning. That's called structure - and you just admitted you have no problem with a structureless map?
3. 00:22:550 (1,2,3) - Again, clearly no 1/4 here but mapped 1/4. Please listen closer. - See above
4. 00:35:750 (3,4,5,6,1,2) - This is just ugly. 00:36:150 (5,1) - Is never done anywhere else either. It makes the occurrence of overlaps less spread. - But you never do this anywhere else, how can it be less spread if this is the ONLY INSTANCE OF IT?
5. 00:40:950 (5) - Reason for skipping these beats? There's no special sound to emphasize here. It's the end of the phrase, so it ends with an easier rhythm - No but that's not what the song is doing... the song is still at the same intensity so this slider is literally misrepresenting the song.
6. Same complaints about the aesthetics as the topdiff, this difficulty actually uses the playfield better, so that's good. But 00:28:150 (4,5,6,7,1) - this could be tidied up as one of the few patterns in this diff. 00:31:350 (4,5,6,1) - No equal visual spacing whatsoever. 00:35:350 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1) - Do I even have to comment on this one?

Stacks in Advanced: 00:43:350 (5,4) - 00:46:550 (1,5) -

I could keep saying the same sort of things about the lower difficulties, so I'll stop here with the specifics.

Generally this mapset does not seem to have any structure whatsoever in terms of aesthetic or theme in general. Somehow this got qualified so there must be some reasoning behind this, but reading the thread I'm not really convinced in all honesty.

There's my reply. I hope we can come to an agreement on this.

EDIT: I like how your reply has "Mir's DQ" on it. Like you know this can get dq'd for these reasons.

Shiirn wrote:

okay so like for real


your emphasis on the top diff is completely fucking random and nonsensical and it doesn't seem to know when to use 1/2 sliders and when to spam circles and there's literally no coherence or relevance to the song.


You should really go over the map and actually note where the synth is weaker or straight up doesn't exist and actually re-do the map so that the 1/2 sliders are actually following the squeaky melody rather than......whatever completely messed up jumble you have right now.


Just because the map is playable and plays fine doesn't mean it's good or even follows the music. This is a shitdump song, but doesn't need to have a shitdump map.

wtf shiirn you can't come out of nowhere and come onto my map

about the "I don't think we need i agree comments" is it not okay to give support to a person trying to DQ the map?


anyways, I think i'll run over some things Stingy denied.

You can't say "I don't like kicksliders, but the GDr does, so it's totally fine!" No it isn't, LGV's hyper has more note density then the highest diff, BUT the only reason the SR is higher for Kris-Kris-Krispe-Kreme is because of the spacing. Just because it may be LGV's style it doesn't mean your diffs can be inconsistent.

00:22:550 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - there are not any 1/4, although because of the wobbly feel of the map, it sounds like 1/4. Here are the actualy notes:

00:22:550 -
00:22:750 -
00:22:950 -
00:23:150 -
00:23:250 - (this is the only 1/4)
00:23:350 -
00:23:350 -
00:23:550 -

00:23:750 (1,2,3,4,1) - although there ARE sounds on the 1/4 here, it's 1/6. And each 1/6 should be clickable, but obviously, that would be too hard for this difficulty.

00:28:950 (1,2) - this should be a slider, you didn't respond to this: "00:25:750 (1) - 00:26:950 (1) - 00:27:750 (1) - so these make sense because they're on the bass kick or whatever, which is fine, but then 00:28:950 (1,2) - shouldn't this be a slider to keep the rhythm consistent? Same goes for 00:35:350 (1,2). "

00:33:950 (2,3) - your making the player go directly down diagonally, while your other "back and forth" patterns don't follow that same zig-zag motion. same with 00:34:750 (5,6) - this, going directly upwards diagonally.

I don't think saying things like: "Not back-and-forth, it's "sharp"." is good. I mean, you told me "it's a back-and-forth flowy map" so you have contradicting points, here.

you also replied with "No not really". Thats a very subjective way to reply to a mod. Try to look at the map how others would want to look at it. Do you wanna explain your almost absurd reasoning to every single player (who has a good sense of the game) who plays this map? If not many other people can understand your reasoning, except for a select few, and if majority says one thing is "wrong" then it would be best for you to change it rather then keep on making excuses.




Here are some things you've responded with:

" where's the problem?"

"?"

"??"

"Please listen closer" (it's okay, but maybe you should take your own lesson. There's no 1/4"

"? I really don't see a problem with any of this"

"The map is about to end. Why hype it up?" (usually the most 'hype' place is at the end"

"There are 1/4." (again, this is subjective, if you see the majority saying it isn't 1/4, then most likely, it isn't 1/4.)"


those are not proper responses.



Also, you haven't responded to my previous mods, the only people who responded were Bakari.



edit; it took me like 10 minutes to mod this and there's already 6 posts ahead of me... smh

top diff:

00:22:550 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - this is clearly overmapped, the sounds it is mapped to start on 1/2 and END on blue ticks. there isn't a new sound, there isn't anything warranting an object. kicksliders will work, better.

00:28:550 (4) - there isn't any reason for this to be a slider.

earlier you used sliders on sounds like 00:28:950 (1) - but now it's a circle and the slider is before that.

00:39:150 (1,2,3,1,2,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2) - others mentioned this but i also strongly recommend thinking more closely about when you use stacks and when you don't. i don't see any pattern here.

00:43:750 - i think you should take a look at when you use sliders, consider only using them for the strong bass sound like the one on this slider end.

what i think could be changed after a dq

-> actually correcting the offset to be -12~-15 of the current (currently the map has an online offset)

what i think the map generally "suffers" from is that it is mostly trying to be the same everywhere, which is not what the song is doing. The song is highlighting different sounds, which aren't being made stand out in any way, instead everything is within the variations of "this is similar" except for a few patterns.

The song is very monotonous but that doesn't mean that that is all it is, examples where you actually break your own structure are 00:21:750 (1,2) - which is a lot larger to then be a lot smaller while being placed on a buildup, 00:19:350 (1,2,3,4) - is consistently large, 00:20:150 (1,2,3,4) - is about consistently large and so is 00:20:950 (1,2,3,4) - but one just gets a noticably bigger jump for seemingly no reason (that is made apparent by the context of the map itself)

the song makes other places stand out too, such as 00:26:550 (4) - 00:26:950 (1) - 00:28:950 (1) - 00:30:150 (1) - 00:30:950 (1) - where big drums are giving the otherwise repetitive song a bit of difference, which you seem to somewhat disregard in your map. you can highlight object either through spacing or its absence, or though breaking movement and you don't really utilise either predictably so that other people can recognise it (the factor that it is visually all over the place by avoiding patterning or grouping objects into logically connected units might be contributing)

the only way to address this issue would be to redo the entire difficulty with this in mind though.

other things that are kind-of-dodgy:
00:45:350 (2,3) - 00:39:150 (1,2) - hitsound volume leaves these more or less inaudible

I figured I'd give my own opinion on this due to the recent controversy.

Personally, I like this map. I like the fact it's patterns are creative, yet simple. It plays really well, but like most of you will agree that's not the most important aspect of the map.

I think what Okorin said about the map 'trying to be the same everywhere' when the song itself isn't the same throughout was a good statement. But personally I think the simplicity of the map is what makes it so special.

i disagree xd

being monotonous just means that you were too lazy to put forward effort to emphasize stuff
like a 1/4 slider for bass drum, different ds, etc

NOO I HAVE TO SS THIS WITH FL AGAIN

In all seriousness, I don't think there should be so much concern about the qualification of this map. The dq for the offset is of course necessary, however. While were here though I guess I'll give you some improvements you can make for Krispy Kreme


That's all I think is really necessary.

so can i map ur extra thing im gud at mapping i think
xd

everyone started modding after my post. I feel guilty now :/

nic map brO

Uhm where were you before this was qualified
It seems you only care now that it's qualified
You could've mentioned this before
You know, like before it was qualified and stuff

Irrelevant.

It matters more now that it is qualified, whether I noticed before or not really doesn't matter. When a map is qualified, it's put out for the whole community to judge it. Don't blame me for modding your map, you should blame your map for making me mod it.

Take it easy on him. It's easy to understand his reaction. It's hard to get that far in the ranking process and seeing someone who didn't get involved with the project just step on it out of nowhere can really unbalance some ppl. I agree that qualification it's a way to show community the map and all that stuff, but I also believe that the modding effort should be given while the map is still looking for mods and it's a WIP map.

Hypothetically speaking, qualification status should mean that the map was already modded enough to the point that most people involved with it are actually satisfied with the result, as well as being approved by two members of the community that are supposedly to give this map a really deep checking for then get it finally into qualified. As result of that, the map will be exposed to the most experienced mappers(QATS+BN is around 92 ppl) that will have around a week to see through a list of 30 maps +/-, if something wrong actually passed by everyone involved on the mapset.

The moment when people are randomly scroling the qualified section, opening the map, seeing a bunch of things they don't like and completelly ignoring all the modding involved with it before the bubble and posting while qualified it's really frustranting to the owner of the mapset and I do not encourage regular modders in doing that. We should not be healing wounds, but prevented them from happening.

If there are so many mistakes on this map as so many people are now poiting out, then what's up with all the previous modding? Seems like something is wrong with how hypotetically things should work and how they're actually being done. It could be either the modders didn't checking the mappers reply, or the mapper not really replying to modders, etc, etc.

Not trying to speak as an expert or accuse anyone of anything. Just taking the oportunity to take this matter into proper discussion.
Since it's now WIP once again I'll three suggestions, no kds;
I hope that you can add some of what Mir, Shiirn, Nao Tomori, Whirl and Okorin said to make the top diff more appealing.
Good luck with this mapset, I hope that this dq won't stop you from trying it again o/