greetings
ok so, since it will be ranked soon, I should express my concerns about it to make sure that I did at least something to keep the high standards in ranked section.

first of all, Im more than concerned about hitsounding

with default hitsound this map (now im talking about the last diff) has a very controversial sounding
basically, to know what im talking about, you should turn off the custom hitsounds and go to
00:41:391 - till 00:46:364 -
it actually happens thru the entire diff.

basically its just all wrong and weird.

by saying that "oh, its up to user's skin" - your literally forcing people to adjust their skins to play your map. which is at least questionable I suppose?

moving up next:
00:07:059 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - i dont really understand why is this patternized like that, basically
00:07:059 (1,2) -
00:07:380 (1,2) -
00:07:701 (1,2) -
^ all of them has different distance, despite that the sound is still the same, also I dont really understand you used kick sldiers there, since its a very uncomfortable pattern, moreover, usually kicksliders are used to cover the mediocre sound on slider end in triplets, but in this sound measure you dont have it.
It is literally 1/2 jumps right there. So you mapping drops here 00:06:739 (1,2) - , and then switching to drops+VOCAL 00:07:059 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - , which is inconsistent and wrong in my opinion, since is deluding the players from understanding the rhythm youre following.

not to mention that ure basically copied entire pattern 00:09:305 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - here and flipped it horizontally, which isnt contributing to the overall quality.

next up, I am highly concerned about the structure in this map:
00:12:193 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - it is a bad attempt to add a variety in structure, that youre used twice (copy-paste ^ that i mentioned above), I dont see any structure, or any logical object placement there, its just flow and thats it.
like, why is this slider has 3 anchors? 00:12:835 (1) - you didnt use it before in the same sound measures.
00:14:760 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - the transition from horizontal jumps into kickslider>jump>flow break> kickslider>jump here is so forced that its literally pain to play.

on the same "HAI-HAI-HAI" vocals you never used bends on slider, 00:25:027 (1,2) - what happened here? it was always linear flow from kickslider>jump

00:26:150 (2,3,4,5) - flow here is so destroyed to the point where its non-existent, I legitimately cant see this working in current ranking standarts of mapping.

and the same things are repeating over and over thru the entire diff.

no structure, flow-breaks here and there without a visible reason for it.

example of how you could make it better:
00:41:391 (1,2,3,4,5) - here is a nice opportunity to use a star polygon
00:42:995 (2,3,4,5,1) - ^
00:46:846 (2,3,4,5,6,3,4,5,6,7) - they are just blatantly copied and they are not even linear, you could make them in one line at least?
00:49:412 (3,4,5,6,7) - same thing, its just flipped from the previous stream, despite it is a different vocal measure.

ok here is a obvious example of how inconsistent and broken this structure is:
01:08:664 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - (70% volume) compare this and 00:07:059 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - this (65% volume)
that means, that the first one shud be spaced more than second one, but for some reason ure going from 2.2 in first measure, to 1.9 in second one.
01:13:797 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - same thing, structure in these measures is inconsistent.


01:19:252 (1,2,1,2) - it is basically overmapped jumps that were put to force high SR.
you might say, hey, its KIAI

tho i dont see a reason to put a kiai here at all

lets see:
01:18:931 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - 70% volume HAI-HAI-HAi chorus ds 2.2-2.5
01:13:797 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - same 70% volume, same hai-hai-hai chorus, ds 4.0-6.2 ????


ok so lets see what is happening in Extra:
00:51:979 (2,3,4,5,6) - so basically this thing is somehow different from 00:49:412 (3,4,5,6,7) - 00:48:129 (3,4,5,6,7) - etc
despite the fact that its a same big sound measure that shud has the same distance correlation.
00:54:546 (3,4,5,6,7) - etc

and also its just sad to see that youre copying everything over and over, just zero improvisation.

01:22:140 - 01:22:461 - why finishes there? I think its a mistake. its just simply wrong, you probably forgot to apply some custom hitsounds there.
also, moreover I can say that some of slider ends should be silenced
00:38:022 - example (it comes to highest diff as well)

Well, in assumption I can say that this map is very unpolished, mapped not carefully and needs more work.

And you know, its not just me, even more people think that its really bad.
Some of them are members of BNG.

Nonetheless, I affirm that this map is not ready to be ranked and needs to be disqualified for further development.

Just a few concerns considering the last diff nothing big really

00:15:883 (2) - for a vocal focus map I think this is not really needed, with how the intro is mapped the guitar never stood out and 00:15:883 (2) - was an unexpected click

00:18:450 (2) - ^same

00:26:150 (2) - ^same

00:28:717 (2) - ^same

00:49:412 (3,4,5,6,7) - concerned for changing stream direction from horizontal to vertical which is inconsistent with how you mapped the later part, you have good aesthetic sense, it should be easy to fix.

good luck

Too sleepy..

HighTec wrote:

Hi! I have some concers for the top diff!

00:04:332 (2,4) - Seeing the patterning used before in the map, why isn't this stacked like 00:00:482 (2,4) - and 00:03:049 (2,4) - ? It doesn't make much sense to me to have the same pattern done differently when the song wasn't asking for it. If you wanted a change, I think a change in angle to 00:04:493 (3) - would be the best for emphasising the vocals.
// First of all, here is same as 00:01:765 (2,3) - , not same as 00:00:482 (2,4) - and 00:03:049 (2,4) - . And now, let's see the pattern. I didn't want to change flow because music doesn't change dramatically. So, I thought it's enough to change rhythm(1/2 slider to 2 notes) and unstack.

00:12:193 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - Why do these enforce a circular motion all of the sudden? In all other occations that are really damn similar to this one you enforce a circular flow with the jumps being placed vertically on the grid, but here you decide that your old patterning doesn't matter anymore even though it's the exact same set of sounds? Also why are 00:12:514 (1,1) - curved it only makes it even more inconsistent and weird.
// I don't think it's sudden change. As I unstacked 00:10:589 (1,2,3) - this (previous part was stacked like 00:05:455 (1,2) - and 00:08:022 (1,2) - ), I tried to tell players about 'CHANGE'. So this part is different previous part, it's fine.

00:15:723 (1,2) - Wouldn't a slider be better here? Currently seen from tapping emphasis there is no difference to 00:15:081 (1,2,1,2) - . What this does while playing is that it doesn't feel like the song is changing (which it is here) and just feels like the big jumps are over. A slider would help the player recognise that there's an upcoming change and thus makes the player more connected to the song.
// My opinion is different. I wanted to notify the change of song to player by giving dramatic spacing gap, because 00:15:402 (1,2) - this spacing is quite big. But 1/2 slider doesn't demand lots of movement of cursor. It's really tiny. So I put circle jump with almost same flow and small spacing.

00:20:215 (1,2,3) - These feel really noticable to me. I don't get what you're trying to accomplish with the spacing here. The change is so small that it barely feels like anything's changing while playing in the map itself, even though the song is clearly more intense on these 3 notes. I think a bigger spacing change or perhaps even a angle change would fit here really well to let the player know there's something going on. (like, you did something noticable at 00:30:482 (1,2,3) - so why not here!!)
//Well, I changed spacing because of first appearence of snare(?) sounds, but it doesn't too loud. So I thought it's enough spacing with NC.

00:25:027 (1) - Why is this the only kickslider with a curve it doesn't make sense with the other sliders that you mapped here :v
// Because the rule of 1/4 sliders in this diff was 'Face to the next note'. Not straight slider. So it's mutable anytime :3

00:39:466 (3,1) - Patterning inconsistency, isn't (1) supposed to be stacked on the tail of (3) like you did on 00:36:899 (3,1) - ? It feels weird to have sounds be the exact same but the patterning to be slightly off for no particular reason at all other than it ?subjectively looking nice?
// To be exact, 00:40:108 (1,2,3,4,5) - this pattern is inconsistent. Because of 00:40:749 - this cymbal sound, I felt 00:40:108 (1,2,3,4,5) - this is intermediate status between 00:38:824 (1,2,3,4) - and 00:41:391 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - . So I thought it's fine to change pattern a bit.

00:42:354 (6,7) - This is the reason why I'm writing this. Can you please, really really PLEASE unstack these? The jumps are slowly crawling to their max and the music is intensifying but you just destroy the entire momentum that you built up with the stack. It feels so disappointing to have this in the map, honestly. Can this please be a jump like the rest of the section? The drums aren't getting any calmer so I don't see a reason why you'd want to kill all movement momentum just like this.
// lol, I just wanted to distinguish this and 00:43:637 (1,2) - this because 00:43:637 (1,2) - this vocal is stronger than 00:42:354 (6,7) - this. So I stacked this and didn't NC here.

00:48:931 (1,2) - Kinda the only situation in which you decide to use a really sharp angle after a slider. Would be cool to have this note be right to the slider like you had in legit all other situations in which the same emphasis is taking place.
// I had known this flow, but I thought it's fine. Because (1) is 1/2 slider, so real flow isn't so sharp I thought.

00:57:113 (2,5) - Again, you stack a lot in the map but just undo the stacking here? Weird aesthetical choice man
// Hmm, if the reason is only aesthetical thing, I just like this.

01:05:134 (1,2,3) - I do by far not agree on these notes being stacked, especially with 01:05:616 (4) - . What you're doing here is indeed making the notes noticable by removing all possible movement, but to be fair is it really what the loud drums and really intense hitsounds deserve? I get that it's after a really slow slider and it might be suprising for players to have jumps after, but the drums kick in randomly too so why not give the feeling of the song away in the map? Also please unstack 01:05:616 (4) - to make it a noticable ending of the kiai part.
// The reason that I stacked all notes is for emphasis of difference between 01:04:493 (3,4) - this two slider. And.. I can't understand why I should unstack (4) for just end if KIAI x.x

01:11:231 (3) - Missed kickslider? I still here the "Hai" shout thing here noticably so why is this the only place without a kickslider? I mean, 01:11:551 (1,1) - has them too and 01:08:664 (1,1,1) - is almost the exact same in the song so what's the point in making it different?
// 01:08:664 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - Here is only 'HAI', but 01:11:231 (3,4,1,2,1,2) - here is two vocal at the same time. So I wanted to hold another vocal for 1 beat so it can be different from previous 'HAI' part.

When replying, can you please not respond with something along the lines of "I think it looks nice"? I tried to look at what you were doing with the map and based my points off of that. I want to understand what what you are doing here so please make me able to understand it.

I hope you consider these points with the intent of bettering the map and not to keep qualified status, good luck!

Will check rest of post after sleep.. orz

• 
  Black and White

1. 00:00:482 (2,3,4) - the contrast of those jumps are wrong, the song is emphasizing white ticks (stamps), the back and forth pattern doesn't fit, lowering spacing on
   00:00:803 (4) - would make it make sense again, this is actually quite important because it's the start of the map, on a map like this with a somewhat flexible spacing concept this is one thing you need to get right imo,
2. 00:01:926 (3,4,5) - even though this part has correct contrast on spacing emphasize I'm not really fond of how you represent the song here,
   00:01:926 (3,4) - this part flows and plays exactly like 00:00:963 (5,6) - while the song's melody on 00:01:926 (3,4,5) - is finally changing & doing something different, it's really something you should get right with a flexible spacing concept which could be easily applied . it doesn't really feel mapped to the song pattern wise.
3. 00:02:567 (5) - what about a 3/4 slider? the song is doing a long hold note, a 1/1 feels logically a bit counterintuitive.
4. 00:03:049 (2,3) - again spacing contrast isn't contributed correctly with this back and forth, you are ignoring both instruments in your spacing.
5. 00:03:530 (5,6) - Why does this pattern does something completely different from 00:01:926 (3,4) - & 00:00:963 (5,6) - ?
   You are variating the placement of your patterns in a wrong way, you should do it when the song changes and not just randomly whenever you feel like it lol.
   this is what I meant with 00:01:926 (3,4,5) - you are ignoring the variation of the song and making up your own in your patterns.
6. 00:00:322 (1,2) - i don't see a reason why spacing is bigger now? the song starts getting intense on 00:04:493 -
7. 00:04:653 (4) - spacing contrast is really odd here why is (4) the most emphasized? i assume the map is following vocals because that's why the spacing increases, but then it doesn't make sense how you still put the highest spacing on 00:04:653 (4) - cause the song is not emphasizing that note,
   there's only that Scottish sounding instrument there(i don't know what it's called) please alter your spacing.
8. 00:05:455 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2) - This arrangement looks a cluttered, but that's not really what concerns me the most.
   you are putting spacing emphasis on 00:06:097 (4) - clap, 00:06:257 (5) - Scottish instrument(idk name) and on the vocals 00:06:418 (6) -
   It doesn't make sense you are trying to emphasize everything which ends up emphasizing nothing. the player won't be able to know what you are following you are just drowning the player in information, this is actually something somewhat objectively bad hence why there's a guideline about it.
   I don't see why you would follow all layers of the song at the same time why? please follow like max 2.
9. 00:08:343 (3,4,5,6,1) - again you are following too much and drowning players in information of what is being followed.
   don't follow everything.
10. 00:09:947 (1,2) - this is where the song makes a distinct change in the song and you hitsounded it too, why does it have the weakest emphasize from the group? 00:08:824 (5,1,2,1,2,1,2) - there are many ways to emphasize that sound on 00:09:947 (1) - , a rhythm change, sv change, or simply more spacing, why did you to decide to ignore it? spacing contribution looks lazy done, not only that but you put more spacing emphasize on other parts which are kinda harassing the correlation to the song a bit, just compare 00:09:947 (1,2) - to this 00:12:514 (1,2) -
11. 00:10:749 (2,3) - this is an aesthetical error, being that these look the same like 00:09:626 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - look similar but they are not the same part of the song, it looks really misleading, you didn't do it here 00:11:391 (5,6) - would fix that, and
12. 00:11:231 (4,5,6,1,2) - stop following everything, this is standard mode not mania.
13. 00:12:193 (1,1,1) - you would think the that the way how these sliders are now curved would indicate something in the music but nothing happends why is are those curved?
14. 00:13:156 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - This is bad.
    You suddenly have this part of the song 00:13:156 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - really overlapped with this part of the
    song 00:12:193 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - but these part don't relate to each other at all and you didn't do it before (see 00:08:022 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - )
    there is this thing with mapping if you map to the same place the previous entry will kinda lose it's emphasized. it would be way better of if you gave the middle or down right corner of the playfield more love.
15. 00:13:797 (4,5,6) - there is no real reason or logic behind the idea "when does a back and forth appear"
    00:05:776 (3,6) - no back and forth
    00:08:343 (3,6) - no back and forth
    00:10:589 (1,2,3) - back and forth 00:11:551 (6) - no back and forth
    00:13:477 (3,6) - back and forth
    so it's structured like 0 0, 0 0, 1 0, 1 1, can you explain those?
16. 00:14:920 (2) - your new combo indicates that you are mapping to the vocals, but why do you immediately put emphasis on 00:14:920 (2) -
    doesn't make sense lol, again you are drowning the player in information. You are following 4 instruments 00:14:439 (1,2,1,2) - it's really unclear what you are following lol.
17. 00:15:081 (1,2,1,2) - It's really odd how you now actually milk the hell out of those cymbal crashess while you didn't follow it here 00:09:947 (1,2) -
18. 00:20:856 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - why do you follow the "hey" vocal on 00:21:177 (3) - and then you don't follow it on 00:21:819 (6) - ? seems a inconsistent rhythm choice considering you decide to map those vocals again at 00:22:461 (3,1,1) - the rhythms are randomly crossing with the other vocals for no reason feels vague. and other times when the song does the same thing you do follow it at for example at 00:34:011 (3,6) -
19. 00:25:027 (1) - why is this slider different, don't see why. you know when you randomly change those things players will think something changed in the song but nothing happens in the song so it looks uncalled for.
20. 00:22:781 (1,2,1,2,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,2) - looks a bit cluttered and right side of the playfield could use some love too
21. 00:25:348 (1,2,1,2) - this overlap especially, it aesthetically doesn't make sense cause those 1/4 jumps never overlapped each other.
    this also could be arranged better 00:24:225 (5,2,2,2,2,2) -
22. 00:28:236 (6) - This an error here with your sliderdesigns compare 00:27:915 (5,6) - with 00:17:648 (5,6) -
23. 00:30:482 (1,2,3) - really bad choice for a back and forth here.
    but the song is only putting a lot of emphasize on (1) and (3).
24. 00:37:541 (1,2,3) - logically doesn't make sense to have a back and forth here this is an entirely different part of the song why do you map it the same way?
25. 00:40:428 (3,4,5) - this flows smilair to 00:37:862 (3,4,5) - while the vocals doing something different.
26. 00:43:477 (5,2,2) - placement like this a bit offensive to mappers who try to make their jumps look neat this could, for example, form a triangle it makes really big aesthetical differences if you stuff like that imo, this is why some mappers hexagrid.
    SPOILER

    g
27. 00:44:920 (2) - the guitar stops producing 1/2 notes here 00:45:081 (3) - why so much spacing on here? it's not following the song lol.
28. 00:47:648 (1,1) - why are these two sliders differently shaped? the song isn't changing & it's kinda devaluing the meaning of your sliderdesigns on 00:50:215 (1,3)
    01:05:616 (4) - kiai blast does fit but, the song technically goes into a whole kiai again.
    01:22:140 (1,2) - what calls for this stacking overlap? it doesn't look ugly but, you never did it before.

placeholder didnt finish

You don't account how the map sounds with ignored hitsounds, that's something on the player's end. I don't think anything is wrong with that.
Just like how offscreen hard rock objects are not unrankable. can be ignore, however i do think there's quite alot wrong with this map though lol.

Monstrata wrote:

We mod maps wit the assumption that ppl use default settings (like default skin) shouldn't we also assume that players will have custom hitsounds enabled since thats the default setting? @Xexxar.

I also agree, if people turn off hitsounds, sb, skin in a mapset is by their own risk...

Hello!
Since quite a few concerns have been raised regarding the top diff's spacing/design and the hitsounding in general, Lets disqualify this to allow some more time for discussion.

After looking through the mods a lot of the stuff are rather subjective and don't seem to actually try to understand why the map was made that way and why it fits. Also about hittsounding, a map's rankability should be built around default settings, this includes hitsounds, no mod etc. Forcing someone to accommodate their map to a player's skin shouldn't be mandatory


@Modders Please use more simple sentences so it's easier to understand

Since the map was DQ'd, I am just gonna re-recommend changing soft_hitfinish to something like drum_hitnormal.

GL...

also nice wall mods all at the same time guys!

it has been 7 days from it got qualified and....

Enon wrote:

it has been 7 days from it got qualified and....

xd

Will be comeback as Black or White 2.0 ww

omg why

rip

that's pretty sad lol

Cellina wrote:

hi-mei wrote:

wrong timing, wrong emphasis, wrong hitsounding, lazy volume control

gratz on quali i guess

what is wrong with you

not with me, but with this map instead

deleted by request of Sonnyc
카리아님 화이팅

well, i did read that, however me and others are still concerned about the entire thing
and since it got attention of qat, i can assume that there is something wrong with this map

i don't recommend you to use 1/4 sliders together with vocal "hai!"
just overmapped

GL Karia, I hope you can get this qualified again!

hi-mei wrote:

well, i did read that, however me and others are still concerned about the entire thing
and since it got attention of qat, i can assume that there is something wrong with this map

Not really. It got dq'd because you guys thought it would be a great idea to wait until it's about to get ranked so they literally had to dq it for discussion.

Funnily enough, all the "issues" pointed out in the dq mods are subjective or don't have a real reasoning, but welp. The only thing that bothers me personally are the visuals but that's it.

Dear hi-mei, I've been reviewing your mod post and I think you could be taking advantage by the looking at some of the code of conduct for modding and mapping.

hi-mei wrote:

basically its just all wrong and weird.

So first of all, "you" may "feel" things to be not right or weird, but that doesn't mean the mapper's opinion is just completely wrong. Everyone has their own opinions, and just calling others to be wrong because it is different with yours didn't really seem to be respecting the mapper's idea. And you know, this way, it's either hard for your opinion to gain respect.

hi-mei wrote:

not to mention that ure basically copied entire pattern 00:09:305 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - here and flipped it horizontally, which isnt contributing to the overall quality.

hi-mei wrote:

00:12:193 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - it is a bad attempt to add a variety in structure, that youre used twice (copy-paste ^ that i mentioned above), I dont see any structure, or any logical object placement there, its just flow and thats it.

hi-mei wrote:

and also its just sad to see that youre copying everything over and over, just zero improvisation.

Seeming from these sentence, it looks like you are considering repeated patterns based on copying objects to be bad. It could be. But from whose perspective were you talking about? Were patterns being copied where they weren't meant to be according to the beatmap's "current design", or was it according to "your personal style" that beatmaps with a lot of variety are high in quality?

hi-mei wrote:

moreover, usually kicksliders are used to cover the mediocre sound on slider end in triplets, but in this sound measure you dont have it.

Continuous from the comment before, this kind of sentence made me feel you were making mods based on your "personal style" in prior to the beatmap's "current design". I'm not really sure what you were meaning when you say the word "usually", but at least it didn't felt to be refering to the usual usage of 1/4 kicksliders in "this" map. The "usual" usage of 1/4 kick sliders in "this" map (talking about the highest diff) was appearing at the HAI sounds of the vocal and the only exception was at 01:03:851 (1,2,3) with a slightly different rhythm composition. Maybe it was your opinion that such concept to be fundamentally flawed from the beginning that made you raise this point out. However without showing that you have truely understood or attempted to understand the intention of the mapper, the points feel less persuasive than you may think.

You'll know just telling the map to be bluntly "wrong" is something highly disrespectful to say to a mapper.

Whether intended or not, the languages you were using felt to be quite offensive towards the mapper which made me confused if you were really attempting to provide a help on this mapset or was just attacking. I think you should be considering about your language selection much more seriously when making future mod posts...... It's the one that even goes before the actual contents of your mod post.

And of course, I'm not implying the contents of the mod itself to be worthless or something so I hope you don't get me wrong.



Besides that, I hope Karia could be investing some time to apply these mods since I see some points that are good enough to be addressed. Maybe I'll be checking this myself once again later on.

it is actually weird to see you here, since you announced your departure to the military

however, if you did read my post, you could noticed that i was doing that not to make a drama, or start a discus or something (you can also see other mods there, also with valid points in them)
i did that just to make sure that my concerns in regards of ranking standards are up to date, and more over, few bns/prominent mappers told me that this map needs a lot of work, and its a shame that you, Sonnyc, bubbled it.
Moreover, you did not even check hitsounding issues, which were obvious enough to check I suppose?

Nonetheless,

Sonnyc wrote:

So first of all, "you" may "feel" things to be not right or weird, but that doesn't mean the mapper's opinion is just completely wrong. Everyone has their own opinions, and just calling others to be wrong because it is different with yours didn't really seem to be respecting the mapper's idea. And you know, this way, it's either hard for your opinion to gain respect.

Yes, every mod is a subjective thing, and each time you mod, you express you own vision on stuff, which can be flawed/influenced by someone.

at the end of the day, thats how modding works I assume.


also, by making that response to my mod, you already confirmed that Karia isnt just a random mapper to you, but a friend at least, which explains your indulgence to this map.

Corruption?

He's just telling you to be less of an arrogant piece of shit who thinks he knows a hell of a lot more than he actually does.


It's nice that you care about this game enough to get so heated over it, but seriously. Fucking chill.

This drama again? Soon a GMT will be here I bet. Is not that hard to behave and be polite when voicing your opinions.

OMG CUTE KITTY

i love osu ppl, theyre cute. but im not


IdontUnderstandItBcusJustWithAlphabetWordsThatIknow

Let's calm down.
Anyway it DQed, mapper can fix what he want and keep what he don't want and go for reQF.

If map really needs rework, then prominent mappers and BNs that you reallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreally like will appear and say sth.
I wanna say sth about this QAT, buy anyway yea why we're delaying this cool map with useless dramas?

Arrival wrote:

ooooo kawaii neko-desu

calm down guys
and shiirn, you really should know how to pay respect to someone rather than swearing

Profanity is a highly effective tool at enhancing the intent of language and showing personality, as well as a means of providing a more "down-to-earth" image, to show that you're just as much a human being as the target.

Profanity has its place. A blanket refusal to accept its existence is pathetic.

Be nice, guys.

There is no necessity to offend others, to talk about someone's personal circumstances. Modding is for discussing what needs to make a map much better with mapper, is not for fighting other modders. even if you do it continuously, nothing will solve and nothing will be better.

Let's calm down and await mapper's response.

Okay himei, now I see your intentions much clearly. Actually, it is something good to leave feedbacks on things that you believe that could be further improved, because it's solely the community's responsibility to assure beatmap quality! I never intend to discourage you from taking this kind of actions. Just I wanted to advice that you could be more friendly when selecting your words because everyone who appreciates your mod post do have feelings afterall :3 Hope my intention was delivered properly.

Regaridng the actual map, I'll be mentioning stuffs that I agree with the mods that fixing would benefit a lot.
Thanks for the feedback everyone to make a better place in osu!. I've also got a better understanding about this map. (hopefully)

we're just got some hitsounds problem, but why are we so sensitive? the mapset is really cool

btw @himei, offending the map creator in an obvious way and then telling that the mapper shouldnt be offended of your mod afterwards doesnt work. you already did that to me and im not even surprised to see you here doing the same.

holy, what happened here x.x

Shiirn wrote:

Profanity is a highly effective tool at enhancing the intent of language and showing personality, as well as a means of providing a more "down-to-earth" image, to show that you're just as much a human being as the target.

Profanity has its place. A blanket refusal to accept its existence is pathetic.

pls no

o???

Sonnyc wrote:

Just I wanted to advice that you could be more friendly when selecting your words because everyone who appreciates your mod post do have feelings afterall :3

friendly

So should people be friendly enough to you to get a yolo bubble?

Do you actually use your brain and think about what it entails after things like that happens?
By qualifying a raw map only because its ur friend and osu is a friendly place youre:
1. making people sure that icons from bns isnt a sign of its quality, but a sign of "friendship" between mapper and bn
2. spewing disrespect to people who actually work on their maps to get them ranked, rather than work on their connections to make map ranked
3. making an example for new mappers, which can basically absorb the fact that map could be "okay" but not "good" or w/e to be ranked, so at the end it also affects the overall bar of the ranking quality as well
4. disappointed people like me who believed that youre a lot more acknowledged in mapping than you actually are

and by the way, Karia still should respond to this:
p/6048512
p/6048513
p/6049029

ps:
ranking isnt a friendly thing, friendship ends where you get your map qualified, its like an exam - you either pass it or youre out.
making friends in "jury" is a cool thing yea, but please, this ranking system is already rotten as hell, can you be a bit more restrictive to stuff youre doing? it affects so many people, you should consider that.
thanks.

Do you think a BN would bubble a map just because their friends with the mapper? No.

Do you think a BN would help a friend get a ranked map over a random person wanting help? Yes.


I don't think the only thing the BN was thinking about when bubbling this map is "this is my friends map therefor I am obligated to bubble it regardless of it's quality".

also stop trying to criticise SonnyC for putting a "yolo" bubble, at the time S/he believed the map was ready so he set a bubble, now he see's your intentions so leave it at that.

I thought you weren't a meme anymore




For the map: I really like it! Good job owo

Arrival wrote:

crap another kawaii neko desu