hi this maps style isnt consistent with my own so therefore its bad! gl!Nao Tomori wrote:
I disagree with the visual style. Vetoed! Have fun!
forum
FELT - After rain
posted
Total Posts
215
its NOT my style, ALL CHANGE !!Xexxar wrote:
hi this maps style isnt consistent with my own so therefore its bad! gl!Nao Tomori wrote:
I disagree with the visual style. Vetoed! Have fun!
quick irc
15:04 Monstrata: lets see
15:07 Monstrata: 00:49:886 (6,7) -
15:07 Monstrata: could be spaced a bit more imo
15:07 Monstrata: 00:49:457 (4,5) - cuz of this jump
15:07 UndeadCapulet: ok, will move so 00:49:886 (6,7,1) - is more equal distance
15:07 Monstrata: 01:04:029 (4) - maybe Ctrl+G so it's more obvious this is a bigger gap?
15:08 Monstrata: 01:05:314 (1,2) - ^ would tranition nicely into these sliders too cuz of upward movement instead
15:08 UndeadCapulet: ooh, nice!
15:09 UndeadCapulet: second one, don't really wanna ctrl-g since it's the end of the verse, i like the slowdown
15:09 Monstrata: oh no that was just extension of earlier
15:09 UndeadCapulet: oh ok
15:09 UndeadCapulet: lol
15:10 Monstrata: 01:52:870 (3,4,1) - seems kinda ugly if you don't blanket but ehh.
15:10 UndeadCapulet: haha, there isn't a single blanket in the map so if anything it'd just stand out weird
15:10 Monstrata: 01:56:727 (1,2) - can you tell me why this is a jump btw
15:10 Monstrata: or why 2 seems emphasized
15:10 UndeadCapulet: oh well
15:11 UndeadCapulet: that was originally like http://puu.sh/uvHqU/ba8a7b557d.jpg but everyone hated it
15:11 UndeadCapulet: so i just moved it somewhere that was more natural and obviously 1/2
15:11 UndeadCapulet: i still prefer the old arrangement tho
15:11 Monstrata: but can you justify the jump somehow?
15:12 Monstrata: 02:09:584 (1,2) - how about spacing this bigger than the others? since 02:09:798 - is pretty significant too
15:12 Monstrata: also bigger spacing will help make the 1/3's after it easier to read cuz spacing won't be as similar
15:13 UndeadCapulet: for that i really wanna keep the 02:07:870 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2) - crawling motion to build into the new vocal verse
15:16 Monstrata: 03:19:870 (3,4) - something like http://puu.sh/uvHOy.jpg
15:16 Monstrata: would still fit your aesthetics i think?
15:16 Monstrata: but imo it would improve aesthetic
15:17 UndeadCapulet: that's a lot more of a backwards motion from the slidertail for me
15:17 UndeadCapulet: uh brb family
15:18 UndeadCapulet: ok back
15:19 Monstrata: wtf that long slider xd
15:21 Monstrata: 04:36:170 (1,2) - mmm kinda unsure about this antijump use xP
15:21 Monstrata: 05:12:598 - also triplets?
15:23 UndeadCapulet: haha idk why so many people point those antijumps out, they match up with 02:19:013 (1,2) - to express the weak vocals and light 1/2 rhythming
15:23 UndeadCapulet: and i really like the 3/4 gaps there, people don't misread that or anything ;w;
15:23 Monstrata: hmm weak vocals
15:24 Monstrata: but theres a strong snare sound there and vocal pitch goes up, though i guess you could argue pitch doesn't dictate emphasis
15:24 Monstrata: however, it's also hitsounded to emphasize the snare
15:24 UndeadCapulet: i think i do the "high pitched but lower volume super stressed vocals" as smaller spacing a lot
15:25 Monstrata: so your reason is, you're emphasizing the vocals with anti-jumps then
15:25 UndeadCapulet: yeah owo
15:25 Monstrata: okay
15:26 Monstrata: that i can accept at least
15:26 Monstrata: because anti jumps is a valid form of emphasis, just not one that people seem to enjoy
15:27 UndeadCapulet: mhm
15:28 Monstrata: okay i guess thats all from me generally, now to look at xexxar's mod i guess
15:29 Monstrata: 00:00:172 (1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,1) - i dont understand why there is such a great difference in rhythms here when the song is practically the exact same. What are you following? this doesnt really make sense.
15:29 Monstrata: can kinda agree. rhythm is quite inconsistent
15:29 UndeadCapulet: yeah the intro is easily the most questionable part of the map
15:29 Monstrata: 00:09:171 - blank is fine it hink, emphasizing the higher pitch piano thing?
15:30 UndeadCapulet: mhm
15:30 Monstrata: 00:10:457 (1,2,3,4) - this is fine tho i think. its consistent its the other parts that are not
15:30 UndeadCapulet: intro is designed around really quiet feeling with light rhythms to emphasize only the most important beats
15:30 UndeadCapulet: and introduce gameplay concepts the rest of the map use
15:30 Monstrata: introducing gameplay elements i can get behind. but
15:30 Monstrata: emphasizing only important beats
15:31 Monstrata: the song is repeating itself
15:31 Monstrata: so if thats your focus, then shouldn't you emphasize the same beats?
15:33 Monstrata: mm
15:33 Monstrata: anyways
15:33 Monstrata: answer xexxar's mod first
15:33 Monstrata: if anything you still have one bubble
15:33 UndeadCapulet: once you reach 00:13:886 (1) - the rhythms become consistent again
15:33 UndeadCapulet: yep
15:07 Monstrata: 00:49:886 (6,7) -
15:07 Monstrata: could be spaced a bit more imo
15:07 Monstrata: 00:49:457 (4,5) - cuz of this jump
15:07 UndeadCapulet: ok, will move so 00:49:886 (6,7,1) - is more equal distance
15:07 Monstrata: 01:04:029 (4) - maybe Ctrl+G so it's more obvious this is a bigger gap?
15:08 Monstrata: 01:05:314 (1,2) - ^ would tranition nicely into these sliders too cuz of upward movement instead
15:08 UndeadCapulet: ooh, nice!
15:09 UndeadCapulet: second one, don't really wanna ctrl-g since it's the end of the verse, i like the slowdown
15:09 Monstrata: oh no that was just extension of earlier
15:09 UndeadCapulet: oh ok
15:09 UndeadCapulet: lol
15:10 Monstrata: 01:52:870 (3,4,1) - seems kinda ugly if you don't blanket but ehh.
15:10 UndeadCapulet: haha, there isn't a single blanket in the map so if anything it'd just stand out weird
15:10 Monstrata: 01:56:727 (1,2) - can you tell me why this is a jump btw
15:10 Monstrata: or why 2 seems emphasized
15:10 UndeadCapulet: oh well
15:11 UndeadCapulet: that was originally like http://puu.sh/uvHqU/ba8a7b557d.jpg but everyone hated it
15:11 UndeadCapulet: so i just moved it somewhere that was more natural and obviously 1/2
15:11 UndeadCapulet: i still prefer the old arrangement tho
15:11 Monstrata: but can you justify the jump somehow?
15:12 Monstrata: 02:09:584 (1,2) - how about spacing this bigger than the others? since 02:09:798 - is pretty significant too
15:12 Monstrata: also bigger spacing will help make the 1/3's after it easier to read cuz spacing won't be as similar
15:13 UndeadCapulet: for that i really wanna keep the 02:07:870 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2) - crawling motion to build into the new vocal verse
15:16 Monstrata: 03:19:870 (3,4) - something like http://puu.sh/uvHOy.jpg
15:16 Monstrata: would still fit your aesthetics i think?
15:16 Monstrata: but imo it would improve aesthetic
15:17 UndeadCapulet: that's a lot more of a backwards motion from the slidertail for me
15:17 UndeadCapulet: uh brb family
15:18 UndeadCapulet: ok back
15:19 Monstrata: wtf that long slider xd
15:21 Monstrata: 04:36:170 (1,2) - mmm kinda unsure about this antijump use xP
15:21 Monstrata: 05:12:598 - also triplets?
15:23 UndeadCapulet: haha idk why so many people point those antijumps out, they match up with 02:19:013 (1,2) - to express the weak vocals and light 1/2 rhythming
15:23 UndeadCapulet: and i really like the 3/4 gaps there, people don't misread that or anything ;w;
15:23 Monstrata: hmm weak vocals
15:24 Monstrata: but theres a strong snare sound there and vocal pitch goes up, though i guess you could argue pitch doesn't dictate emphasis
15:24 Monstrata: however, it's also hitsounded to emphasize the snare
15:24 UndeadCapulet: i think i do the "high pitched but lower volume super stressed vocals" as smaller spacing a lot
15:25 Monstrata: so your reason is, you're emphasizing the vocals with anti-jumps then
15:25 UndeadCapulet: yeah owo
15:25 Monstrata: okay
15:26 Monstrata: that i can accept at least
15:26 Monstrata: because anti jumps is a valid form of emphasis, just not one that people seem to enjoy
15:27 UndeadCapulet: mhm
15:28 Monstrata: okay i guess thats all from me generally, now to look at xexxar's mod i guess
15:29 Monstrata: 00:00:172 (1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,1) - i dont understand why there is such a great difference in rhythms here when the song is practically the exact same. What are you following? this doesnt really make sense.
15:29 Monstrata: can kinda agree. rhythm is quite inconsistent
15:29 UndeadCapulet: yeah the intro is easily the most questionable part of the map
15:29 Monstrata: 00:09:171 - blank is fine it hink, emphasizing the higher pitch piano thing?
15:30 UndeadCapulet: mhm
15:30 Monstrata: 00:10:457 (1,2,3,4) - this is fine tho i think. its consistent its the other parts that are not
15:30 UndeadCapulet: intro is designed around really quiet feeling with light rhythms to emphasize only the most important beats
15:30 UndeadCapulet: and introduce gameplay concepts the rest of the map use
15:30 Monstrata: introducing gameplay elements i can get behind. but
15:30 Monstrata: emphasizing only important beats
15:31 Monstrata: the song is repeating itself
15:31 Monstrata: so if thats your focus, then shouldn't you emphasize the same beats?
15:33 Monstrata: mm
15:33 Monstrata: anyways
15:33 Monstrata: answer xexxar's mod first
15:33 Monstrata: if anything you still have one bubble
15:33 UndeadCapulet: once you reach 00:13:886 (1) - the rhythms become consistent again
15:33 UndeadCapulet: yep
Will wait for Xexxar's mod to be replied to first, as there are some things I agree with. Depending on what Capulet addresses (hopefully the concerns I agree with) I can maybe help with this set in the future after discussion has trailed off (because lets face it, this isn't a type of map where discussion will reach a conclusion/relinquishing of veto)
w e w
Topic Starter
Thanks for you concerns, Xexxar! And thanks for dividing everything up into main issues, it was well-worded and easy to read :>
Since your post ended up being about a lot of general things, it'd be better for me to discuss things more generally as well instead of going line by line. Hope that's okay, feel free to let me know if there was a bulletpoint you especially wanted a response to.
Also, since it's mostly general, some things may just be able to be summarized as "uh i disagree". I only have general responses to your general replies, so they might not feel satisfying (also, wording words is hard orz). Let me know if I need to elaborate further on anything.
If I'm reading things right, there are 4 main issues you have with the map: unappealing visuals, rhythm inconsistencies, 1/3 readability, and the intro. With that said:
Hope I understood you properly, and I hope I made some form of sense in my ramblings.
Sorry to see you didn't enjoy my map. But I definitely don't think it's "fundamentally flawed", we just disagree about what should be focused on in mapping. If you can put the visual differences aside, I'd be happy to discuss further.
---
Also, to anyone following this thread, I'm considering changing the rhythms at 04:31:027 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - or 02:13:870 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - to be more consistent with each other. I originally wanted the second kiai to blend the two halves of the first kiai together (since it's half as long), but the better experience may just be to fully match everything. Would love to hear other opinions!
Since your post ended up being about a lot of general things, it'd be better for me to discuss things more generally as well instead of going line by line. Hope that's okay, feel free to let me know if there was a bulletpoint you especially wanted a response to.
Also, since it's mostly general, some things may just be able to be summarized as "uh i disagree". I only have general responses to your general replies, so they might not feel satisfying (also, wording words is hard orz). Let me know if I need to elaborate further on anything.
If I'm reading things right, there are 4 main issues you have with the map: unappealing visuals, rhythm inconsistencies, 1/3 readability, and the intro. With that said:
Visuals
For whatever reason, lots of mappers today strictly follow the philosophy that if a map isn't superduper pretty with every object falling into an obvious geometric pattern and all negative space being even, then the map must be really bad. I don't understand this philosophy, and in practice it seems to only produce maps that I don't enjoy playing.
When designing a video game, a game designer is supposed to have an understanding of what the core appeal to their game is. For a game like Final Fantasy 15, aesthetics and visuals certainly matter, because a big part of the game is driving around scenic vistas gawking at how pretty the world is. But osu! isn't a game like that; osu! is a game where players click circles to the beat of a song. It is a game 100% driven by its input mechanics, so that's what a level designer (in this case, a mapper) should be focusing on.
As far as my own opinion on map quality, I would rather play maps made by soulfear than maps made by, say, Cherry Blossom. Because soulfear's maps have more engaging rhythming, spacing, and cursor motions, and overall fit the song better to me, despite obviously looking like shit (I picked CB's name at random, I have nothing against him personally). I really don't like the mentality that just because a map is ugly, it must be low quality. It results in people losing focus on how hitobjects actually interact with each other and instead just brushing off maps that I think are high quality.
The thing you said about "if the gameplay is the same, go with the pretty option", I can agree with this. However, I reallllllllly don't think there's a way to preserve my preferred motions I'm looking for while making the map fit your visual standards. If you need an example of how I tend to respond to visuals suggestions, check out toybot's mod where I changed quite a bit, and also check out Kisses' mod where I denied everything.
I hope we can agree to disagree on this aspect of mapping. (tbh I've had other mappers say they like my visual style, which really shows that visuals are pretty much totally subjective lol)
When designing a video game, a game designer is supposed to have an understanding of what the core appeal to their game is. For a game like Final Fantasy 15, aesthetics and visuals certainly matter, because a big part of the game is driving around scenic vistas gawking at how pretty the world is. But osu! isn't a game like that; osu! is a game where players click circles to the beat of a song. It is a game 100% driven by its input mechanics, so that's what a level designer (in this case, a mapper) should be focusing on.
As far as my own opinion on map quality, I would rather play maps made by soulfear than maps made by, say, Cherry Blossom. Because soulfear's maps have more engaging rhythming, spacing, and cursor motions, and overall fit the song better to me, despite obviously looking like shit (I picked CB's name at random, I have nothing against him personally). I really don't like the mentality that just because a map is ugly, it must be low quality. It results in people losing focus on how hitobjects actually interact with each other and instead just brushing off maps that I think are high quality.
The thing you said about "if the gameplay is the same, go with the pretty option", I can agree with this. However, I reallllllllly don't think there's a way to preserve my preferred motions I'm looking for while making the map fit your visual standards. If you need an example of how I tend to respond to visuals suggestions, check out toybot's mod where I changed quite a bit, and also check out Kisses' mod where I denied everything.
I hope we can agree to disagree on this aspect of mapping. (tbh I've had other mappers say they like my visual style, which really shows that visuals are pretty much totally subjective lol)
Inconsistency
Consistency is definitely something important in mapping. Songs are naturally repetitive, so concepts in a map should also repeat to express the song properly, and make the map feel cohesive and defined. Concerns like this are the ones I value the most in modding, so thank you for focusing on this more than visuals (though it would've been great if you hadn't focused on visuals at all ww).
I put a great deal of care into keeping rhythms and spacing consistent throughout the map, repeating for same-sounding sections of the song. You use the example of 01:58:870 (8) - vs 01:48:584 (6) - being a rhythm inconsistency, but I don't really see why, when 01:48:584 (6) - is ending a vocal verse and is matched by 04:33:170 (6) - , while 01:58:870 (8) - is in the middle of a vocal verse and has no relation. There is consistency, just not whatever you were looking for.
My response to Kisses' mod goes through nearly every note in the map. It discusses rhythm consistency, spacing consistency, and general concepts. If you have more specific examples of things I messed up on, I would love to hear them, since I don't really see your issue here. But check my reply to Kisses' reply first, since it talks about nearly everything.
Also, before Nao bubbled the map we spent like 4 hours going through pretty much every note, and Nao was happy with the justifications.
I put a great deal of care into keeping rhythms and spacing consistent throughout the map, repeating for same-sounding sections of the song. You use the example of 01:58:870 (8) - vs 01:48:584 (6) - being a rhythm inconsistency, but I don't really see why, when 01:48:584 (6) - is ending a vocal verse and is matched by 04:33:170 (6) - , while 01:58:870 (8) - is in the middle of a vocal verse and has no relation. There is consistency, just not whatever you were looking for.
My response to Kisses' mod goes through nearly every note in the map. It discusses rhythm consistency, spacing consistency, and general concepts. If you have more specific examples of things I messed up on, I would love to hear them, since I don't really see your issue here. But check my reply to Kisses' reply first, since it talks about nearly everything.
Also, before Nao bubbled the map we spent like 4 hours going through pretty much every note, and Nao was happy with the justifications.
1/3 Readability
Multiple people have brought up their concerns about the 1/3 patterns in this map, for understandable reasons. It's the hardest beat snap to sightread, and frequently sours a first play. If there were ever a spot testplayers missed, it was 01:56:298 (1,2,3,1) - . However, I'm comfortable with my 1/3 patterns being totally readable. A mapping philosophy that is gaining more and more traction, especially in the chinese scene, is that any rhythm is readable in a stack. This is because the approach circles are totally overlapped, so all the player has to do is look at them, and click accordingly. So for the 01:49:441 (1,2,3,1) - pattern you worry about, there is a 1/1 gap before it, giving the player plenty of time to move their cursor into position, and click the 1/3 circles.
The next 1/3 pattern is the spaced stream at 01:56:298 (1,2,3,1) - . Several testplayers miss here on their first play, but due to misaiming the stream itself, they still hit the rhythm properly, and they hit the whole stream on their second play. This rhythm is totally readable. Songs have a natural repetition to them, so people can easily sense that before this downbeat, these circles will be 1/3.
These two 1/3 arrangements repeat throughout the map (another way my map is actually consistent!), the stack for quiet drums, the spaced stream for loud powerful drums. Players can properly sense these coming because of general rhythm sense as explained above, even in areas like 02:09:584 (1,2,1,2,3) - where 1/2 and 1/3 spacing is almost identical. You say the map is unreadable, I can't help but just say you need to improve your reading :c
Not a satisfying answer I'm sure, but sometimes "you are just too weak" actually applies..
The next 1/3 pattern is the spaced stream at 01:56:298 (1,2,3,1) - . Several testplayers miss here on their first play, but due to misaiming the stream itself, they still hit the rhythm properly, and they hit the whole stream on their second play. This rhythm is totally readable. Songs have a natural repetition to them, so people can easily sense that before this downbeat, these circles will be 1/3.
These two 1/3 arrangements repeat throughout the map (another way my map is actually consistent!), the stack for quiet drums, the spaced stream for loud powerful drums. Players can properly sense these coming because of general rhythm sense as explained above, even in areas like 02:09:584 (1,2,1,2,3) - where 1/2 and 1/3 spacing is almost identical. You say the map is unreadable, I can't help but just say you need to improve your reading :c
Not a satisfying answer I'm sure, but sometimes "you are just too weak" actually applies..
Intro
This is definitely the most questionable part of the map imo, I have no problems with somebody popping over this.
The start of the song is a constant spam of piano at 1/2 beat (well, 1/4 at double bpm but you know what I mean). But mapping this wouldn't feel satisfying in the big picture of the map, because this section of thee song is really, really quiet and weak feeling. So instead I mapped this section with the idea to:
Spacing is generally really low because I want as little motion as possible for this super quiet intro to contrast the bigger motions in the kiai sections. So you talk about ugly overlaps in the intro, that's why they're there.
00:00:172 (1) - to 00:13:029 (4) - is half a verse, and then it repeats starting at 00:13:886 (1) - with the introduction of a new instrument. The rhythms from the second half of the verse mirror the first half, with the exception of the added instruments. 00:00:172 (1,2,3,4) - matches 00:13:886 (1,2,3,4) - , 00:06:171 (4,5,1) - matches 00:19:886 (6,7,1) - , and so on. The second half is slightly more dense than the first half for previously explained reasons, but the previously emphasized beats are still the overall focus, unless something new shows up.
00:00:172 (1,2) - Is a really quiet start to a song, so I perfect stack. No cursor motion reflects the quiet start, as well as the 1/1 rhythm gap. Also, now the player knows this map has perfectly stacked objects.
00:02:743 (5,1) - The first introduction to a common theme in the map: Downbeats frequently reverse play direction. It's overlapped because the overall spacing is so slow, but I still need the heavy direction change here, so this is the resulting placement.
00:05:529 (3) - The first 1/2 beat shows up here, so to keep note density low I avoid mapping 00:04:029 - . It also helps to emphasize 00:06:171 (4) - when we get back to white tick clicking.
00:06:814 (5,1) - These are both really weak high tick piano beats, so they are stacked together to reduce motion, and the spacing from 00:06:171 (4) - is smaller. Lower spacing for weak stressed high pitches is a very common theme of the map.
00:08:529 (3,4) - First instance of multiple 1/2 clicks, note density is slowly increasing more and more.
00:09:600 (5) - Slidershape reduces motion here to emphasize the high pitch for similar reasons as above.
00:10:457 (1,2,3,4) - End of the first half of the verse, things get simplified to build into the next half, where the song begins to repeat itself. Another common theme of the map.
00:16:243 (5,6) - The first 1/2 jump, emphasizing the new instrumental. The player is now aware of 1/2 jumps. Spacing is slowly building in intensity as well. Also, this introduces sliders that feed back into the prior circle, another common theme.
00:16:457 (6,1) - As a quick example, this motion matches 00:02:743 (5,1) - , but larger. The whole intro works with this concept.
---
And so on. Mapping every piano beat would be very unfitting in the big picture imo, so I did this kind of thing instead. If you have suggestions for better rhythming, feel free to suggest them, I totally understand these rhythmings being questionable.
The start of the song is a constant spam of piano at 1/2 beat (well, 1/4 at double bpm but you know what I mean). But mapping this wouldn't feel satisfying in the big picture of the map, because this section of thee song is really, really quiet and weak feeling. So instead I mapped this section with the idea to:
- introduce gameplay concepts that will appear throughout the map
- start with super minimal rhythming and slowly build in note density
- emphasize high pitched beats like 00:06:171 (4,5) - , 00:09:600 (5) - , etc.
Spacing is generally really low because I want as little motion as possible for this super quiet intro to contrast the bigger motions in the kiai sections. So you talk about ugly overlaps in the intro, that's why they're there.
00:00:172 (1) - to 00:13:029 (4) - is half a verse, and then it repeats starting at 00:13:886 (1) - with the introduction of a new instrument. The rhythms from the second half of the verse mirror the first half, with the exception of the added instruments. 00:00:172 (1,2,3,4) - matches 00:13:886 (1,2,3,4) - , 00:06:171 (4,5,1) - matches 00:19:886 (6,7,1) - , and so on. The second half is slightly more dense than the first half for previously explained reasons, but the previously emphasized beats are still the overall focus, unless something new shows up.
00:00:172 (1,2) - Is a really quiet start to a song, so I perfect stack. No cursor motion reflects the quiet start, as well as the 1/1 rhythm gap. Also, now the player knows this map has perfectly stacked objects.
00:02:743 (5,1) - The first introduction to a common theme in the map: Downbeats frequently reverse play direction. It's overlapped because the overall spacing is so slow, but I still need the heavy direction change here, so this is the resulting placement.
00:05:529 (3) - The first 1/2 beat shows up here, so to keep note density low I avoid mapping 00:04:029 - . It also helps to emphasize 00:06:171 (4) - when we get back to white tick clicking.
00:06:814 (5,1) - These are both really weak high tick piano beats, so they are stacked together to reduce motion, and the spacing from 00:06:171 (4) - is smaller. Lower spacing for weak stressed high pitches is a very common theme of the map.
00:08:529 (3,4) - First instance of multiple 1/2 clicks, note density is slowly increasing more and more.
00:09:600 (5) - Slidershape reduces motion here to emphasize the high pitch for similar reasons as above.
00:10:457 (1,2,3,4) - End of the first half of the verse, things get simplified to build into the next half, where the song begins to repeat itself. Another common theme of the map.
00:16:243 (5,6) - The first 1/2 jump, emphasizing the new instrumental. The player is now aware of 1/2 jumps. Spacing is slowly building in intensity as well. Also, this introduces sliders that feed back into the prior circle, another common theme.
00:16:457 (6,1) - As a quick example, this motion matches 00:02:743 (5,1) - , but larger. The whole intro works with this concept.
---
And so on. Mapping every piano beat would be very unfitting in the big picture imo, so I did this kind of thing instead. If you have suggestions for better rhythming, feel free to suggest them, I totally understand these rhythmings being questionable.
Hope I understood you properly, and I hope I made some form of sense in my ramblings.
Sorry to see you didn't enjoy my map. But I definitely don't think it's "fundamentally flawed", we just disagree about what should be focused on in mapping. If you can put the visual differences aside, I'd be happy to discuss further.
---
Also, to anyone following this thread, I'm considering changing the rhythms at 04:31:027 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - or 02:13:870 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - to be more consistent with each other. I originally wanted the second kiai to blend the two halves of the first kiai together (since it's half as long), but the better experience may just be to fully match everything. Would love to hear other opinions!
tl;dr:
soulfear wrote:
No,thank you
fuckin rektNaitoshi wrote:
tl;dr:soulfear wrote:
No,thank you
Topic Starter
nah loved is lame
UndeadCapulet wrote:
loved is lame
Couldn't you colorhax the 1/3? i found it frustrating to read as well.
For example when you do 1/4 stacks right next to 1/3 stacks (02:29:941 (2,3,4) - and 02:34:013 (1,2,3,1) - ) it's extremely hard to read.
For example when you do 1/4 stacks right next to 1/3 stacks (02:29:941 (2,3,4) - and 02:34:013 (1,2,3,1) - ) it's extremely hard to read.
Topic Starter
nah colourhax is lame
it shouldn't be necessary, as i said in the response to xexxle, anyone with basic rhythm sense should expect the 1/3 you pointed out even with the 1/4 right before it, because the song is structured so the 1/3 appears at similar points in the song over and over
and its not like colourhax actually makes things more readable anyway, since most players turn off mapspecific colours so they can use their skin colours
and its not like colourhax actually makes things more readable anyway, since most players turn off mapspecific colours so they can use their skin colours
hmm
i said all of this in pm already but w/e
i think in the very beginning until 00:27:600 - a few accents set through circles seem a bit unfitting (as in trying to interpret the song in a way that isn't really straightforward)
00:04:457 (2,3,4,5) -
00:17:957 (2,3,4,5) -
00:20:529 (7) -
00:25:243 (2,3) -
are the most obvious places where the complexity created by using circles on 1/4 or even just the general rhythm choice create something way more complex than what the song provides in terms of where it's highs are focused and in relation to the rhythm you used previously
only thing i find pretty cluttered looking is 00:36:171 (5,6) - because you never did or really do this kind of thing again after a slider
01:56:298 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - poses a rather unplasant reading spike which isn't really kept intuitive through spacing or hitobject usage in general, https://puu.sh/uxvt9/659fa89626.png might just work (less preferably https://puu.sh/uxvvj/bae9c942f7.png)
i like reverse emphasis done okayish (02:30:584 (1) - ending in a stronger sound but followed by a longer than usual break to make it stand out)
the more i listen to them the harder of a time i have grasping if the 1/6 are actually there or not but that might be cuz it's like 4 am or something
04:00:183 (1) - is lame (having it explained previously won't make it any less lame to me, it p much ignores any distinct piano features like the notes on downbeats like 04:03:611 - 04:13:897 - 04:20:754 - or whichever you wanna pick)
04:23:754 (1) - doesn't really follow anything imo the more interesting sounds start at 04:23:968 - , so starting that thing there instead of mapping a hold slider on sounds you didn't previously follow would make more sense to me
last thing i didn't really like is the way you partially visually obstruct reverse arrows on sliders with either circles or sliders, depending on the skin you use to play the map these are either clearly visible or just barely at all
i said all of this in pm already but w/e
i think in the very beginning until 00:27:600 - a few accents set through circles seem a bit unfitting (as in trying to interpret the song in a way that isn't really straightforward)
00:04:457 (2,3,4,5) -
00:17:957 (2,3,4,5) -
00:20:529 (7) -
00:25:243 (2,3) -
are the most obvious places where the complexity created by using circles on 1/4 or even just the general rhythm choice create something way more complex than what the song provides in terms of where it's highs are focused and in relation to the rhythm you used previously
only thing i find pretty cluttered looking is 00:36:171 (5,6) - because you never did or really do this kind of thing again after a slider
01:56:298 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - poses a rather unplasant reading spike which isn't really kept intuitive through spacing or hitobject usage in general, https://puu.sh/uxvt9/659fa89626.png might just work (less preferably https://puu.sh/uxvvj/bae9c942f7.png)
i like reverse emphasis done okayish (02:30:584 (1) - ending in a stronger sound but followed by a longer than usual break to make it stand out)
the more i listen to them the harder of a time i have grasping if the 1/6 are actually there or not but that might be cuz it's like 4 am or something
04:00:183 (1) - is lame (having it explained previously won't make it any less lame to me, it p much ignores any distinct piano features like the notes on downbeats like 04:03:611 - 04:13:897 - 04:20:754 - or whichever you wanna pick)
04:23:754 (1) - doesn't really follow anything imo the more interesting sounds start at 04:23:968 - , so starting that thing there instead of mapping a hold slider on sounds you didn't previously follow would make more sense to me
last thing i didn't really like is the way you partially visually obstruct reverse arrows on sliders with either circles or sliders, depending on the skin you use to play the map these are either clearly visible or just barely at all
Topic Starter
Thank you for checking oko!Okorin wrote:
hmm
i said all of this in pm already but w/e
i think in the very beginning until 00:27:600 - a few accents set through circles seem a bit unfitting (as in trying to interpret the song in a way that isn't really straightforward)
00:04:457 (2,3,4,5) -
00:17:957 (2,3,4,5) -
00:20:529 (7) -
00:25:243 (2,3) -
are the most obvious places where the complexity created by using circles on 1/4 or even just the general rhythm choice create something way more complex than what the song provides in terms of where it's highs are focused and in relation to the rhythm you used previously
messed around with most of these, though i want to keep the high pitched beats that you pointed out as circles, i think they're really important. overall though the intro rhythms should be more logical than before
only thing i find pretty cluttered looking is 00:36:171 (5,6) - because you never did or really do this kind of thing again after a slider changed the 1/4 slider to 1/2
01:56:298 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - poses a rather unplasant reading spike which isn't really kept intuitive through spacing or hitobject usage in general, https://puu.sh/uxvt9/659fa89626.png might just work (less preferably https://puu.sh/uxvvj/bae9c942f7.png) removing 01:56:941 (2) - after all this time, as much as i like the play it provides, in the end it makes for more consistent rhythming and easier 1/3 learning
i like reverse emphasis done okayish (02:30:584 (1) - ending in a stronger sound but followed by a longer than usual break to make it stand out)
the more i listen to them the harder of a time i have grasping if the 1/6 are actually there or not but that might be cuz it's like 4 am or something
04:00:183 (1) - is lame (having it explained previously won't make it any less lame to me, it p much ignores any distinct piano features like the notes on downbeats like 04:03:611 - 04:13:897 - 04:20:754 - or whichever you wanna pick) ;-; i love how this slider expresses this section, i dont ever wanna change it.. even if it means this map can never be ranked, i will fight for it
04:23:754 (1) - doesn't really follow anything imo the more interesting sounds start at 04:23:968 - , so starting that thing there instead of mapping a hold slider on sounds you didn't previously follow would make more sense to me im fairly sure the crescendo-type sound starts at 04:23:754 -
last thing i didn't really like is the way you partially visually obstruct reverse arrows on sliders with either circles or sliders, depending on the skin you use to play the map these are either clearly visible or just barely at all haha, fair enough concern i suppose, but i think people worry about repeat arrow covering more than they should. all the arrows are visible on default skin, which is all rc judges, and except for maybe 04:51:170 (10) - the arrows are mostly visible or given plenty of time to be noticed while the player holds the sliderbody. i think it should be fine
@Xexxar oko says if you don't come back to discuss then your veto won't hold up
I hope the new intro rhythms are better for you
keep going we are so close!!!!
#36
#37
#36
#37
02:56:727 - crash cymbal d
Hi, heres some things I noticed 
00:27:171 (3) - The somewhat overlapping slider here could confuse some, just something to note.
Couldn't spot anything else, good luck!
00:27:171 (3) - The somewhat overlapping slider here could confuse some, just something to note.
Couldn't spot anything else, good luck!
Topic Starter
@bor d
@CircleFairy shouldn't be an issue, tho thanks for the check~
@CircleFairy shouldn't be an issue, tho thanks for the check~
recheck no kd
some minor stuff
rpeview point unsnapped, reset to 00:00:064 - instead
02:29:298 (1) - remove NC for consistency? it currently seems too frequent comparing its former and latter phrases
04:46:455 (1) - ^
ok I think I generally checked this map for too many times
call me back
some minor stuff
rpeview point unsnapped, reset to 00:00:064 - instead
02:29:298 (1) - remove NC for consistency? it currently seems too frequent comparing its former and latter phrases
04:46:455 (1) - ^
ok I think I generally checked this map for too many times
call me back
Topic Starter
Zero__wind wrote:
recheck no kd
some minor stuff
rpeview point unsnapped, reset to 00:00:064 - instead preview point doesn't need to be snapped, prefer mine to avoid as much song select fade-in as possible
02:29:298 (1) - remove NC for consistency? it currently seems too frequent comparing its former and latter phrases done for both
04:46:455 (1) - ^
ok I think I generally checked this map for too many times thank you so much for all your help zero ;;
call me back
so this is bubble #1 right?
thats #2 from zero wind since mine is still on here
last icon was a bubble pop :thinking:
Whatever. Intro rhythms are fine to me.
This is unnecessary bubble imo cuz it was bubble 2 before xexxar attacked and he can only pop one bubble. So zero is just replacing second one.
#2 then.
This is unnecessary bubble imo cuz it was bubble 2 before xexxar attacked and he can only pop one bubble. So zero is just replacing second one.
#2 then.
Gabe wrote:
last icon was a bubble pop :thinking:
can't verify it since i'm not oko, but assuming this is true, then it should be bubble #2, i think.UndeadCapulet wrote:
@Xexxar oko says if you don't come back to discuss then your veto won't hold up
I hope the new intro rhythms are better for you
edit: lmao i didn't even notice that i got ninja'd by 40 seconds
Hi sis
Edit: Sis.... I'm gonna have to punish you for your vernacular
Edit: Sis.... I'm gonna have to punish you for your vernacular
well its number 2 bubil now anyways xD
bubil shmubil
just some quick things to be safe:
just some quick things to be safe:
- 03:56:727 - Is the break here intentional? It felt kinda weird for me when playing because it takes away all the tension here even though this seems like a very tense spot to me, and iirc the following slider is intended to keep up the tension too instead of a long break, so yeah, imo getting rid of that short break would be more fitting, and would also make sense with 04:51:598 - not being a break, but whatever you want, just saying
- 05:18:598 (1) - Since this slider is starting on a red tick and all the sliderticks are thus on red ticks too, I find it somewhat weird that it ends on a white tick.. imo it kinda conflicts with the slidertick's rhythm, bc after holding that slider for seven seconds and only hearing sliderticks I 'forgot' that the slider started offbeat, and just 'felt' the sliderticks as onbeat, so the tail felt offbeat.. I hope that makes sense lol, I'd suggest ending the slider at 05:25:455 - bc then it would be eight beats long which feels nice imo, but whatever fits your sliderhape I guess
Topic Starter
both fixed, guess that break showed up while fiddling with red points o.O
thank you~
thank you~
I've had an irc-conversation with UC about that long slider and diffname and other stuff about a month ago which made me approve of them, the thing Oko mentioned about reverse-arrows' visibility isn't an issue to me at all bc playing on default worked out completely well, yadda yadda yadda I think this is ready!
Topic Starter
Thank you so much Bonsai, I really appreciate it <3
And thank you everyone for supporting/discussing this map! Pushing this forward has been a lot of fun
And thank you everyone for supporting/discussing this map! Pushing this forward has been a lot of fun
04:00:183 (1) - lol what
Some parts of the map are okay, but others (specially this one) feel disgusting to play, and look lazy as heck.
This slider didn't make me feel like I was into the song, it felt like not playing a map and listening to some good vocals that could have been mapped but weren't.
"Lazy" is the only word I can use to describe this slider.
Some parts of the map are okay, but others (specially this one) feel disgusting to play, and look lazy as heck.
This slider didn't make me feel like I was into the song, it felt like not playing a map and listening to some good vocals that could have been mapped but weren't.
"Lazy" is the only word I can use to describe this slider.
Gratsssssssssss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
bubble pops reset icon counts, the process here was correct, I'm assuming Xexxar's veto was argued against sufficiently and he didn't bother coming back to defend his pov for a month so it is argued he didn't attempt discussing in order to compromise thus invalidating the veto
I agreeSophia wrote:
04:00:183 (1) - lol what
Some parts of the map are okay, but others (specially this one) feel disgusting to play, and look lazy as heck.
This slider didn't make me feel like I was into the song, it felt like not playing a map and listening to some good vocals that could have been mapped but weren't.
"Lazy" is the only word I can use to describe this slider.
No one informed me that there was progress being made on the map (all of this happened in 3 days without once messaging me) and yes, I still have issues with this map. I was under the impression I have a right to veto a map for what I believe to be fundamental flaws but I guess not? I supplied my reasons and sure, the mapper defended their points but I still heavily disagree with the overall design on this map, and nothing minor could be changed to fix the overarching flaws within this map. I will be contacting Loctav because this is clearly a breach of the BNG Rules.
EDIT: It appears I was contacted once 16 days ago by Okorin via a @highlight on discord saying that my bubble pop would be void if I didn't respond to the mapper's response. (which note, I did discuss via ingame chat with him.) At the time I was very busy with academics and just said "I'll probably give up then" since I didn't want to waste my time debating with a mapper who would inevitable be unable to meet a common ground with me (the map is fundamentally flawed in my eyes and therefore I believe it shouldn't be ranked).
As far as I know this has not happened before, so this is something that will need to be addressed.
EDIT: It appears I was contacted once 16 days ago by Okorin via a @highlight on discord saying that my bubble pop would be void if I didn't respond to the mapper's response. (which note, I did discuss via ingame chat with him.) At the time I was very busy with academics and just said "I'll probably give up then" since I didn't want to waste my time debating with a mapper who would inevitable be unable to meet a common ground with me (the map is fundamentally flawed in my eyes and therefore I believe it shouldn't be ranked).
As far as I know this has not happened before, so this is something that will need to be addressed.
Monstrata wrote:
A lot of progress was made between bubble-pop and qualification. From what I gathered, you were asked for your opinion and to recheck the map multiple times, but failed to do so for whatever reason. What you veto'ed on may well have been addressed and resolved, but either way, you didn't contribute any further to the discussion after veto'ing despite the discussion and changes that were made after your post, so your veto became invalidated. The decision was made by a member of a QAT
its not the mappers responsibility to hold your veto.Xexxar wrote:
No one informed me that there was progress being made on the map and yes, I still have issues with this map. I was under the impression I have a right to veto a map for what I believe to be fundamental flaws but I guess not? I supplied my reasons and sure, the mapper defended their points but I still heavily disagree with the overall design on this map, and nothing minor could be changed to fix the overarching flaws within this map. I will be contacting Loctav because this is clearly a breach of the BNG Rules.
edgy trash talk
plus if you are modding just to change someones aesthetics I think you clearly don't have a good handle on what makes a map good but hey that's just my opinion
A lot of progress was made between bubble-pop and qualification. From what I gathered, you were asked for your opinion and to recheck the map multiple times, but failed to do so for whatever reason. What you veto'ed on may well have been addressed and resolved, but either way, you didn't contribute any further to the discussion after veto'ing despite the discussion and changes that were made after your post, so your veto became invalidated. The decision was made by a member of a QAT .
.