Shiirn wrote:

Your maps are not you.

Mun wrote:

Shiirn wrote:

Your maps are not you.

pkhg wrote:

avoid bad words

Loctav wrote:

@-himei if you dont know how the modding process work, please get lost or discuss that somewhere else. Just because it is not breaking the RC doesnt mean that no debate about the matter is permitted or that stuff still can't be wrong. And apparantly someone nailed something on your forehead, because this is like the 9023490390349509305935902123843298th time that someone told you this and you are still too dense to get it. Can you just quit it altogether and stop teaching people about an ecosystem that you clearly never understood yourself? On a second note, you can discuss your displease about how the modding ecosystem works in its own thread, not in map threads that are only reserved for discussions about the map self. If you fail to abide that, we will have to make sure that you simply never post in this threads again - ever.

Shiirn wrote:

Attacks and dissenting opinions towards a map are not necessarily personal attacks on the mapper. This is something everyone should try to remember, as it's very easy to feel as if your opinions are being disregarded when presented with conflicting ones.

Your maps are not you. They are not an extension of you, no matter what you may feel on the matter. They are something that are created, and once ranked have officially "grown up" - they're no longer under your control. Ranking a map is by definition ceasing all development and putting out a final, unchangeable copy. You'd best be ready for that.

Maps do not have feelings. Mappers do. People get pissed off when they feel their opinion is being disregarded, or when they feel people aren't giving them the respect "they deserve" by implying, or in many cases, outright saying, that they feel the mapper did something incorrectly.

The main conflicts people are bringing up with this map proper are based on what constitutes "proper representation of the song". The biggest nail of discord there is that the song itself is extremely messed up and hard to follow. As such, different levels of experience in music, listening, or even possibly physical gear (headphones, speakers, etc) can be causing massive changes in what each person hears in this track.

This is why I went to so much effort to point out how horrible this track was - not the map, not the mappers, the song itself. A song that has this much conflict over what even constitutes the basic rhythms and melodies really shouldn't have a difficulty over 6.5*. And that's being generous.

-himei wrote:

With the time the map becomes as an embodiment of its mapper's soul's expression. When somebody continuously tries to change it/nuke it, or just inhibit the ranking of it, the whole discussion becomes personal.
You cant deny anything from ^
It is truth for any map and any mapper that got some experience in mapping and the mapping itself for him (you, me, everyone) becomes an
expression of his feelings
that is personal. It is true for eveyone here who stopped mapping to the "beat" after realizing what mapping is in its advanced form.

Shiirn wrote:

Modders who hate your maps are not clawing through the fabric of reality to tear at your soul. Your creation is intangible, it cannot be damaged or destroyed unless you let it be.

Just because it's important to you doesn't mean that you need to be a neurotic sociopath to protect it from things that cannot hurt it.

The same applies here. Personal attacks are pointless; attacking the map has purpose as the moment you push your map for ranking you are by your own choice putting it under review by opinions that are not your own. Being able to be objective and logical about your own emotions is literally what "maturity" is about.


If you truly wanted to have a map be a personal bastion of your feelings and soul, you would not try to rank it. They're mutually exclusive.

-himei wrote:

theres no distinct borderline of "what is good/bad", aside from RC/Code of conduct, which are vague at some points.

-himei wrote:

you never know what is "optional enough" to skip or "bad enough" to change,, because, eventually, the more people comes, the more stuff you must respond to, the higher chance that you wont handle everything alone.

MrSergio wrote:

If you can't "express" your vision in an easy-to-understand manner then you failed.
It's like... "are people not understanding what I'm saying or is it me who can't explain things?" kind of thing.

Loctav wrote:

@-himei .

WORSTPOLACKEU wrote:

Stuff

1. 00:13:572 (1,2) - i think going along the way 00:11:161 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,6) - suggested which is going for following vocals would actually make that more predictable, you currently have 00:13:974 (2) - which is off-beat from that so using two 1/2 sliders would make more sense with your overall structure you had so far, also applies to 00:14:643 (1,2) - 00:15:715 (1,2) - doing this will enable you to have 00:16:786 (1,2) - stand out specifically and highlight that the vocals there are doing something different
   
   
2. 00:18:125 (1,2) - this is minor but the overlap is so much that it could make the pattern harder to read depending on the skin you're using, could try having the sliderhead of 2 more noticably outside of 1
   
   
3. 00:21:340 (2,3,1,2,3,4) - 00:24:286 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - idk throughtout this section you do seemingly arbitrarily lengths of 1/2 circles before using sliders again, like i get what layer of the music you're following with 00:20:000 (1,2,3,4,5) - , but for some of these it just seems you're mixing multiple layers of the song until it's unclear what rhythm you're actually trying to highlight, i'd advise to follow the melody primarily and only switch to the drum layer when it does something extravagant like it does in 00:26:965 (1,2,1,2) -
   
   
4. 00:23:215 (1,2) - 00:25:358 (1,2) - seem out of place considering that you don't do 1/1 slider in the section otherwise, they stand out by being different where the song doesn't really do anything different
   
   
5. 00:35:536 (3,4) - 00:31:518 (3) - shouldn't these be circles according to how you handled focuses on drums previously? using sliders for these seems kind-of wasted potential to me
   
   
6. 00:36:072 - to 00:40:358 - maps everything as one long stream with highlights on white ticks (aka the reversing sliders) which is kind-of disregarding that the song provides highs on 00:36:340 - 00:36:741 - 00:37:143 - 00:37:545 - 00:38:884 - , some of these are just left in the middle of sliders that start on white ticks for the sake of easy gameplay (assumption from my side) i think you could do more with this if you included a clearer focus on what you're primarily following through rhythm here
   
   
7. 00:59:911 (3) - according to your previous structure this one would probably make more sense as two circles as that would at least allow you to have 01:00:045 - as something that the player has to click.
   
   
8. 01:10:358 - starting here i am unsure what you're mapping the circle-only patterns to, you seem to fall back to mixing multiple layers of the song arbitrarily (at least i can't hear a clear thing that does constant 1/2 at the same intensity in these parts, because not even the vocal layer does that, so whatever you were going for with that it's not very clear) so having something that is in some way predictably following the song through rhythm would probably be better here. I think this is the main thing people take issue with, you mix multiple layers in order to have more circles in seemingly not that obvious ways so people don't really get what you're doing throughout most sections that involve lots of circles with almost the same spacing which leads people to believe you aren't trying to represent the song in any clear shape or fashion.
   
   
9. most of the chorus feels just like any of the previous sections with some slightly higher SV or is even easier, i don't know if this is what you were going for because the way i see it you generally intended the chorus to be more intense.
   
   
10. 01:47:858 (1,2,1,2) - isn't vocal intensity increasing while spacing is decreasing throughout this?
    
    
11. 02:10:893 (1,2,3) - this would be such a cool place for a break similarly to how you did 00:52:411 (3,4) -
    
    
12. 01:44:643 - a lot of your patterns are very circular, most obvious in the circle only patterns which just keep going on in the same direction for like 5 seconds sometimes. you could make a lot of the other patterns stand out more on their own if you e.g. change directions whenever the vocalist starts the phrase over in 01:45:447 - 01:46:250 - 01:47:054 - , right now everything with the exception of 01:46:920 (3,1,2) - which go back-forth, the entire pattern is clockwise and kind-of misses a chance to highlight that the vocalist is starting over the same phrase a lot by making all of these feel similar.

1. From the song, 02:10:893 (3) - sounds like it could be a 1/1 slider and 02:12:500 (1) - could've been 2 1/2 sliders.

1. 03:52:143 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - This should really be following the vocals, there's no emphasis on the OOO~ part. I think you should revisit your Everlasting Memories Diff, there are some useful stuff like what you did to emphasis the OOO~.

1. 00:10:358 (1,2,3,4) - Why is it that you have 3 circles and a 1/1 slider here and decide to increase spacing between notes where there is no build up of intensity?
2. 00:11:831 (1) - remove nc
3. 00:11:965 (2) - nc
4. 00:12:634 (1) - remove nc
5. 00:12:768 (2) - nc
6. 00:24:286 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - I think you should decrease the spacing between these notes since music became less intense.
7. 00:30:715 (1) - change this sliders position, its better to give it more emphasis by not having it flow with 00:29:643 (1,2,3,4) -
8. There's a strong sound here 00:37:545 - and here 00:37:947 - , you could map them as kicksliders?
9. 00:44:643 (1,2) - blanket?
10. I don't understand why you have huge jumps here 01:11:429 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - but not as big here where it makes sense to have large jumps 01:17:858 (1,2,3,4,1,2,1,2) -
11. 01:43:974 (2) - x268 y23
12. 02:51:072 (1,2,3) - try something else, it isn't very creative and music doesn't really support it.
13. 02:59:643 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - a stream? why?
14. 03:05:000 (1) - could be 1/2 and a circle, works better imo
15. 03:25:625 (1) - why not end slider on blue tick?
16. 03:35:000 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - lower distance between notes, jumps are quite large, music hasn't change from the last two kiai
17. 03:43:572 (1,3) - that's a pretty ugly slider tbh and blanket
18. 03:52:143 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,1) - look at suggestion I gave kroytz about this section.

Nao Tomori wrote:

WORSTPOLACKEU wrote:

Stuff

you missed the point entirely.

a map playing "well" (or comfortably, which is what you mean ofc) has absolutely nothing to do with its quality. it's really really easy to make a map that has a high star rating and plays perfectly comfortably since it uses exclusively sharp angles and has no major spacing changes, etc etc etc. that's what raikozen did here. there's nothing WRONG with doing that either. It does, I'd rather see high star rating map that plays comfortably because of the angles than 5~~starish map that has awkward movements here and there. Also you missed my point a bit aswell but it doesn't really matter I guess.

the issue with this map that most people who modded it are talking about is from the theory side of it, where what "should be emphasized" is not and what "should be followed" is not. talking about how it plays is entirely irrelevant since any player that can play 8 star maps with some level of ability won't be put off by high spacing sharp angles or overmapped streams. therefore, people are talking about how raikozen could, in their opinion, use objects to represent the song better from a theory perspective.

Loctav wrote:

Or maybe you just accept the fact that ranking very difficult maps is a very difficult thing to do. And that it is very hard to figure out if it is done right. If you are not up for the controversy and just want everyone to accept your very hard maps as they are, maybe you simply shouldn't map very hard maps and only stay with milder stuff that it easier to evaluate for everyone, including the mapper.

1. The spacing you used for your jumps outside of the kiais could be toned down a little bit. I feel like the kiais lose a lot of power because your jumps feel quite similar from section to another. Especially stuff like 00:26:429 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - , 01:17:858 (1,2,3,4,1,2,1,2) - and 02:18:929 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - .
   
2. 02:39:688 (2) - This slider feels really odd because it doesn't really get supported by anything. I think a better solution to this would be to 02:39:688 - put a note here and then make 02:39:822 - clickable because that sound is way stronger than 02:39:688 - . Sliders like 02:41:831 (2) - are fine though because a vocal clearly starts at the red tick.
   
3. 03:50:402 (2) - Would be cool if this had the same shape as 03:50:000 (1) - so the pattern would be more aesthetically pleasing but that can be a bit hard because 2's body would go off-grid a lot.
   
4. I agree with Okorin about the rhythm stuff like 00:21:340 (2,3,1,2,3,4) - 00:24:286 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - and 01:10:358 - .
5. I also agree with Polack on 02:55:491 (2,1,2) - , was awkward because you used a lot of sharp angles in your map so that threw me off.