gg boiii

Thanks Chaoslitz, Garden and the Pigeon queue :3 you guys are doing such awesome things for this community <3

gratz!

Hey!

Dope map, I like it ... although one thing bothers me:


02:04:608 (1) - from here onwards you didn't hitosunds notes like these 02:05:294 (3,5) - or 02:06:322 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - but you were doing it constantly here 02:03:579 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - all the way back to 01:36:151 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - , I'm guesing this was a accidental mistake since all the visible hitsounded elements don't gave any additions whilst the ones I mentioned have a normal addition for some reason.


Don't think this is DQ worthy but thought you might consider it, just to fix it. It's really noticable in-game (at least on my skin) so it gets pretty annoying haha

@C00L yea that's intentional actually, as I literally changed the hitsound to kicks when the similar sound appears in the song from 02:04:437 - and on. They're totally fine to me tho, not a big problem at all. But thanks for mentioning :3 I'll try to make it better in my next maps

Yamicchi wrote:

next maps

next speedmaps

Understandable, have a great day

Hi, this map previously aroused my concern before its qualified state. Here is my suggestion about the timing:

> 00:01:351 - I think the offset should be started right here, since the noice gate opens at this timing instead of 00:01:008 - (listen at 100% music volume, my ears X_X).

> Furthermore, 00:06:837 (1) - this note will fall on the metronome of the 5th beat which makes the NC mod works well too. Every base 4/1 long note accompaniment, if no special snapping like 00:12:330 (1) - / 00:13:873 (2) - , matches the on-beats.

> Additionally, the original offset is a bit delayed. Imo offset+8 to 1359 would fit the music better.

Agree with Skylish, gonna ask for QAT to DQ this and will be right back

DQ'd upon mapper's request.

Changelog
• Change offset of first timing point to 00:06:836 -
• Add 1 timing point on 01:07:008 -

Updated

rechecked

qualified

gratz another time, have a great day

Thanks again guys :3 and thanks Alpha twice

gotta wait for one more week lol

re gz

Secretpipe wrote:

gotta wait for one more week lol

re gz

Aaaa timing ;v;

Can't wait for yours :3

kinda dissapointed in this map, yamicchi, since i know u could make this better

1. slider art. (warning: SUBJECTIVE)

slider art by itself should follow 2 things:
- the way you build up ur structure (yes, slider art can also have a structure).
- the way you build each slider - it should at least represent the music it reflects

so basically, by making long slider art section, you should either keep in mind the music youre following with sliders to reflect it, or the structure your building up.

i didnt see any of these in this map. its just random, harsh and tasteless.

00:06:837 (1,2,3) - compare the spacing there visually
00:15:237 (3,4) - this blanket giving me rainbows
00:42:665 (1) - what is this? the music is plain and solid, why is this curved that way?
00:42:665 (1,1) - spacing here looks like 1/8 rather than 1/4 (why wouldnt u make 1/8 btw?)
00:45:151 (1) - the way it looks reminds me of forceps
00:45:151 (1,1) - blanket?
00:50:608 - the sound is changing here, you can reflect that by changing the direction of the slider, easily
00:53:465 (1) - kinda works, but the red anchor is way off
00:56:208 (1,1) - blanket here looks like a joke for me https://puu.sh/wB6AE/0f969e51ac.png


ok the most disgusting thing here is slider ticks 00:56:208 (1) - and on other long sliders, basically they reflect NOTHING

why didnt you make custom soft-slidertick?

here i got you covered https://puu.sh/wB6Il/63a3f5969b.rar use this, please.

01:10:093 - stuff like this (i mean tick) gets me triggered so much, its just wrong and unacceptable for mapper like you to gave up on stuff like thsi

05:41:465 - pretty much the same things are going here

2. emphasis and patternization
02:22:608 (4,1,2,3,4,5,6) - lets jump over here and look what is going on:

02:22:608 (4) - is a actual start of sound phrase ure emphasizing ^
why you nc'ed 02:22:779 (1) - ? its a mistake in my opinion

the actual sound phrase consists of pairs of sounds, and the last measure consists of 3
02:22:608 (4,1) -
02:22:951 (2,3) -
02:23:294 (4,5,6) -
so with these paris, the intensity is decreasing, but the volume is increasing
tho, emphasis isnt respected here:
02:22:779 (1,2) - should be like, smaller than 02:22:951 (2,3) - ? because 02:23:122 (3) - is a new pair, and its louder
you got what i mean right?
etc.
after playing this i felt really bad, cuz the way you mapped this pattern wasnt lets say, the best
02:23:808 (1,2,3) - emphasis of the 3 isnt enough i think
basically, i cant agree with 1/2 jumps on such strong beats.
its also a slider jumps, which is way easier to hit.
02:25:351 (4,1,2,3,4,5,6) - this time around its way better
02:28:265 - well yea please reconsider all these places, its just feels randomly bad (structure-wise) despite these sound phrases are really easy to put into some pattern or polygon
02:53:979 (1,1) - here goes my main concern of this map:
here you switching to 1/4 gap, suddenly
i basically cant see why you did 1/2 gaps on slider art section 00:37:007 (3,4) - , or just in common section 02:21:665 -
02:54:322 - this stuff... has 1.1x sv, 02:51:922 - 1.3x sv, why the hell on the earth would you put slow sliders on wubs there and put a circles under their ends?
i mean, yes i can see the progression form 1.1 to 1.5 (here 02:59:808 - ) but the way its done is absurdly poor:
02:54:322 - 02:57:065 - 02:59:808 - the way these are changing - is NOT the volume or intensity, its just sounds. differently, the way it should be reflected is mainly shape and distance/sv acceleration.
03:29:979 (2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - it actually hard to explain what is wrong with it, because like... i completely disagree with what u did here.
1. this 03:30:151 (3,4) - double makes the reading hard and its just bad emphatically because the 03:30:322 (4) - is a strong sound which should be emphasized i guess?
2. 03:30:837 - equals 03:30:151 - why its different? its really noticeable, i would suggest to 03:30:151 (3) - make this as slider-end, and 03:29:979 (2) - slider-start
03:49:179 (2) - nc here i guess?
04:26:379 - this section is really annoying to play, i know how it is when you got really stupid music here to emphasize, but hmm adding some reverse sliders would save player's hands and mood during they play this map i think? and also, talking about reverse sliders 04:30:322 - doesnt feel like a proper decision here, i just dont feel like 04:30:322 - is proper object to reflect CONTINUOUSLY decreasing music, with EACH sond, not by 3 like you tried to do 04:30:322 - its like, hey, its my feeling and ure free to decline, but its super objective here. its almost significant rhythm-related mistake here.
05:16:437 (3,4,1) - make them a bit lower from 05:16:265 (2) - so people would hit that tripple without cursor spikes?
04:30:151 (2,1) - distance is too big here i think? considering previous and next sections.


3. hitsounding and volume control
01:22:464 (4) - hitsound issue, its a definitely a mistake
02:24:322 - stuff like this should be at least lowered volume-wise?
01:46:779 - etc,
i mean, yea, please spend few hours to make them not that loud and underwhelming
03:04:094 (1,2,3,4) - the way you hitsounded this is... hm. basically if u remove the notes, you gonna notice that there is similar pairs:
03:04:094 - 03:04:265 - 03:04:437 -03:04:608 - 03:04:779 -
now remove custom hitsounds and check how it sounds with default ones. its noticeable during the gameplay.
03:28:608 - same issue^
inb4: hey, its up to user's skins, i dont care how it sounds with default ones.
many people (if not the most ones) are using their custom default hitsounds, which can contraddict your decision there.


4. rhythm
02:43:522 - quick example of how you could make the rhythm better (not ignoring the drops and making them clickable, because making them on slider ends isnt adequate i think, considering its 2017 outside and its 5* map) - https://puu.sh/wB7Gj/628449985c.png
02:54:579 - etc
its really tangible during the gameplay

Considering issues&suggestions above, I affirm that this map should be disqualified for further development.

hi-mei wrote:

kinda dissapointed in this map, yamicchi, since i know u could make this better

1. slider art.
it sucks.
It not subjectively sucks, it sucks because theres no idea behind such placement, random curves, random directions. its just bad.

slider art by itself should follow 2 things:
- the way you build up ur structure (yes, slider art can also has a structure).
- the way you build each slider - it should at least represent the music it reflects

so basically, by making long slider art section, you should either keep in mind the music youre following with sliders to reflect it, or the structure your building up.

i didnt see any of these in this map. its just random, harsh and tasteless. I have never been rude to anyone in this community, I think I should at least not to be treated rude by anyone either. The way you're saying about my slider is like insulting me. If you want soft, good blanket sliders with no harsh curve, go to Secretpipe's set, he got all you need.

00:06:837 (1,2,3) - compare the spacing there visually
00:15:237 (3,4) - this blanket giving me rainbows it is not blanket
00:42:665 (1) - what is this? the music is plain and solid, why is this curved that way?
00:42:665 (1,1) - spacing here looks like 1/8 rather than 1/4 (why wouldnt u make 1/8 btw?) why would I have to make it 1/8?
00:45:151 (1) - the way it looks reminds me of forceps
00:45:151 (1,1) - blanket?
00:50:608 - the sound is changing here, you can reflect that by changing the direction of the slider, easily

like this

00:53:465 (1) - kinda works, but the red anchor is way off
00:56:208 (1,1) - blanket here looks like a joke for me https://puu.sh/wB6AE/0f969e51ac.png Give me a day, I can give you 100 maps with 0.5-1 grid off blanket.


ok the most disgusting thing here is slider ticks 00:56:208 (1) - and on other long sliders, basically they reflect NOTHING

why didnt you make custom oft-slidertick?

here i got you covered https://puu.sh/wB6Il/63a3f5969b.rar use this, please.

01:10:093 - stuff like this (i mean tick) gets me triggered so much, its just wrong and unacceptable for mapper like you to gave up on stuff like thsi

I won't say a thing. Read the RC first, then try again. Good luck.

01:22:464 (4) - hitsound issue, its a definitely a mistake yes

2. emphasis and patternization
02:22:608 (4,1,2,3,4,5,6) - lets jump over here and look what is going on:

02:22:608 (4) - is a actual start of sound phrase ure emphasizing ^ Can't you hear the pitch of 4,1 in every pattern? They are the same
why you nc'ed 02:22:779 (1) - ? its a mistake in my opinion Because I'm making the combo odd for 3 pairs of jump.

the actual sound phrase consists of pairs of sounds, and the last measure consists of 3
02:22:608 (4,1) -
02:22:951 (2,3) -
02:23:294 (4,5,6) -
so with these paris, the intensity is decreasing, but the volume is increasing
tho, emphasis isnt respected here:
02:22:779 (1,2) - should be like, smaller than 02:22:951 (2,3) - ? because 02:23:122 (3) - is a new pair, and its louder
you got what i mean right? I would have turned on distance snap while mapping this, but no. Mostly what I wanna show is the decreasing pitch, showing in every 2 objects spacing. That's all I wanna say.
etc.
after playing this i felt really bad, cuz the way you mapped this pattern wasnt lets say, the best
02:23:808 (1,2,3) - emphasis of the 3 isnt enough i think it's enough i think
basically, i cant agree with 1/2 jumps on such strong beats.
its also a slider jumps, which is way easier to hit.
02:25:351 (4,1,2,3,4,5,6) - this time around its way better


3. hitsounding and volume control
02:24:322 - stuff like this should be at least lowered volume-wise? less feedback, no
01:46:779 - etc,
i mean, yea, please spend few hours to make them not that loud and underwhelming no necessary


dont reply, gonna finish this in a moment dont finish, I replied.

To be honest, is this MY map or YOUR map? I don't wanna be impolite but the way you suggest me stuffs makes me feel really upset. If you want to make a perfect map, with perfect spacings, flows, NC, go ahead and make one. I would love to give it a 10/10 after playing if it really is better than my map. So now, please, I don't feel like fixing any of your suggestions. Thank you for noticing my map, have a good day.

I gonna request disqualify at least for hitsound issues. You gonna have time for other changes anyways.
and also, please reply for the rest of the mod.
you must do that in consideration of Code of conduct.

edit: if you cant use soft-slidertick, then you should mute (lower at least to 10%) them manually, or just mute the entire slider 1/8 off slider head.
the way these sliders are ticking right now is too loud. and these ticks arent expressing anything.

I don't know what made you used rough words, himei. But if you could have worded better to encourage a safe dq everyone would be happy. You sounded a bit arrogant and started your post with a mood-breaking line. No one likes replying to a mod that feels like getting slapped by a gorilla.

Feel free to request DQ, if you can convince me instead of saying out such minor and not even an issue stuffs.

it just shows how u care about your map, if you think these things were "minor" and

Yamicchi wrote:

no necessary

w/e, up to QAT if its shud be disqualified or not.

is this really something that needs another dq? lol

it's fine, just let it go

Let's cool down, and let's reply to the rest of the mod, then we'll see if we need a DQ or not.

hi-mei wrote:

I gonna request disqualify at least for hitsound issues. You gonna have time for other changes anyways.
and also, please reply for the rest of the mod.
you must do that in consideration of Code of conduct.

edit: if you cant use soft-slidertick, then you should mute (lower at least to 10%) them manually, or just mute the entire slider 1/8 off slider head.
the way these sliders are ticking right now is too loud. and these ticks arent expressing anything.

why does he even need to reply to this guy? It's not even a mod he's just talking out of his ass

hi-mei wrote:

kinda dissapointed in this map, yamicchi, since i know u could make this better

1. slider art. (warning: SUBJECTIVE)

slider art by itself should follow 2 things:
- the way you build up ur structure (yes, slider art can also has a structure).
- the way you build each slider - it should at least represent the music it reflects

so basically, by making long slider art section, you should either keep in mind the music youre following with sliders to reflect it, or the structure your building up.

i didnt see any of these in this map. its just random, harsh and tasteless. If you want every slider of it represent the exact music, it would be like http://puu.sh/wBLKx/a1d64fce81.jpg from the beginning to the end. Making different shape to create the diversity for the intro, why not?

00:06:837 (1,2,3) - compare the spacing there visually there's nothing wrong about it. 1/2 gap support such spacing.
00:15:237 (3,4) - this blanket giving me rainbows did not intend to make a blanket
00:42:665 (1) - what is this? the music is plain and solid, why is this curved that way? as explained. Also now you don't want me to blanket?
00:42:665 (1,1) - spacing here looks like 1/8 rather than 1/4 (why wouldnt u make 1/8 btw?) based on what you thought, every stacks are 1/8, right? And why do I have to make it 1/8? I don't want to make the section harder
00:45:151 (1) - the way it looks reminds me of forceps i don't know what that is
00:45:151 (1,1) - blanket? a grid off, I don't think you can notice that 100% clearly ingame
00:50:608 - the sound is changing here, you can reflect that by changing the direction of the slider, easily I don't think it's necessary

like this

00:53:465 (1) - kinda works, but the red anchor is way off why was it off?
00:56:208 (1,1) - blanket here looks like a joke for me https://puu.sh/wB6AE/0f969e51ac.png joke for you, good for me.


ok the most disgusting thing here is slider ticks 00:56:208 (1) - and on other long sliders, basically they reflect NOTHING

why didnt you make custom soft-slidertick?

here i got you covered https://puu.sh/wB6Il/63a3f5969b.rar use this, please. to keep players stick to the beat, that's what they reflect. Smaller slidertick doesn't help

01:10:093 - stuff like this (i mean tick) gets me triggered so much, its just wrong and unacceptable for mapper like you to gave up on stuff like thsi Besides you I don't think anyone else have a problem with it

05:41:465 - pretty much the same things are going here just asking are you using hit-finish or stuff for slidertick default hitsound? Because the way you complain about them seems like it

2. emphasis and patternization
02:22:608 (4,1,2,3,4,5,6) - lets jump over here and look what is going on:

02:22:608 (4) - is a actual start of sound phrase ure emphasizing ^
why you nc'ed 02:22:779 (1) - ? its a mistake in my opinion

the actual sound phrase consists of pairs of sounds, and the last measure consists of 3
02:22:608 (4,1) -
02:22:951 (2,3) -
02:23:294 (4,5,6) -
so with these paris, the intensity is decreasing, but the volume is increasing
tho, emphasis isnt respected here:
02:22:779 (1,2) - should be like, smaller than 02:22:951 (2,3) - ? because 02:23:122 (3) - is a new pair, and its louder
you got what i mean right? this is explained in the previous post so I won't say again
etc.
after playing this i felt really bad, cuz the way you mapped this pattern wasnt lets say, the best
02:23:808 (1,2,3) - emphasis of the 3 isnt enough i think I think not, it's enough
basically, i cant agree with 1/2 jumps on such strong beats.
its also a slider jumps, which is way easier to hit. what's wrong with jumping for big drum? Also with that SV, it is not even considered as jump
02:25:351 (4,1,2,3,4,5,6) - this time around its way better
02:28:265 - well yea please reconsider all these places, its just feels randomly bad (structure-wise) despite these sound phrases are really easy to put into some pattern or polygon not a fan of structuring everything
02:53:979 (1,1) - here goes my main concern of this map:
here you switching to 1/4 gap, suddenly
i basically cant see why you did 1/2 gaps on slider art section 00:37:007 (3,4) - , or just in common section 02:21:665 - why are you comparing 2 different rhythm part of the song?
02:54:322 - this stuff... has 1.1x sv, 02:51:922 - 1.3x sv, why the hell on the earth would you put slow sliders on wubs there and put a circles under their ends? not all wubs have higher SV. Never had anyone created a rules of mapping dnb like that. My map, my choice of SV. If it's not ridiculously wrong, then I can use it. If it is wrong, it's not your turn to tell me it's wrong, I can figure that out myself
i mean, yes i can see the progression form 1.1 to 1.5 (here 02:59:808 - ) but the way its done is absurdly poor:
02:54:322 - 02:57:065 - 02:59:808 - the way these are changing - is NOT the volume or intensity, its just sounds. differently, the way it should be reflected is mainly shape and distance/sv acceleration. SV increased following the pitch. Idk what you're talking about
03:29:979 (2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - it actually hard to explain what is wrong with it, because like... i completely disagree with what u did here.
1. this 03:30:151 (3,4) - double makes the reading hard and its just bad emphatically because the 03:30:322 (4) - is a strong sound which should be emphasized i guess? it is not hard to read, and if you want I can copy paste 1 single pattern that satisfied you and apply it to each and every second of the song, and the map will never be ranked.
2. 03:30:837 - equals 03:30:151 - why its different? its really noticeable, i would suggest to 03:30:151 (3) - make this as slider-end, and 03:29:979 (2) - slider-start 03:29:979 (2,4,5,7) - aesthetically, no. I don't support just music, it's also aesthetics. No need to be fixed
03:49:179 (2) - nc here i guess? no
04:26:379 - this section is really annoying to play, i know how it is when you got really stupid music here to emphasize, but hmm adding some reverse sliders would save player's hands and mood during they play this map i think? the intensity doesn't allow easier stuffs. and also, talking about reverse sliders 04:30:322 - doesnt feel like a proper decision here, i just dont feel like 04:30:322 - is proper object to reflect CONTINUOUSLY decreasing music, with EACH sond, not by 3 like you tried to do 04:30:322 - its like, hey, its my feeling and ure free to decline, but its super objective here. its almost significant rhythm-related mistake here. the pitch did not lower regularly, it hits on every 3 1/2 beats. Try to listen to it again
05:16:437 (3,4,1) - make them a bit lower from 05:16:265 (2) - so people would hit that tripple without cursor spikes? too linear pattern
04:30:151 (2,1) - distance is too big here i think? considering previous and next sections. to emphasize the violin section


3. hitsounding and volume control
01:22:464 (4) - hitsound issue, its a definitely a mistake So you're calling the police, tell them to come to your house without any reason, will they come? I don't even understand why you call that a mistake
02:24:322 - stuff like this should be at least lowered volume-wise? hitfinish already made them weak enough. Also keeping the volume for better feedback, as they would know if it's 1/2 or 1/4 or 1/1
01:46:779 - etc,
i mean, yea, please spend few hours to make them not that loud and underwhelming no
03:04:094 (1,2,3,4) - the way you hitsounded this is... hm. basically if u remove the notes, you gonna notice that there is similar pairs:
03:04:094 - 03:04:265 - 03:04:437 -03:04:608 - 03:04:779 -
now remove custom hitsounds and check how it sounds with default ones. its noticeable during the gameplay. it's fine to me
03:28:608 - same issue^
inb4: hey, its up to user's skins, i dont care how it sounds with default ones.
many people (if not the most ones) are using their custom default hitsounds, which can contraddict your decision there.


4. rhythm
02:43:522 - quick example of how you could make the rhythm better (not ignoring the drops and making them clickable, because making them on slider ends isnt adequate i think, considering its 2017 outside and its 5* map) - https://puu.sh/wB7Gj/628449985c.png growl sound, no
02:54:579 - etc
its really tangible during the gameplay

Considering issues&suggestions above, I affirm that this map should be disqualified for further development.

Thanks for the look, but no DQ please thank you.

Yamicchi wrote:

hi-mei wrote:

kinda dissapointed in this map, yamicchi, since i know u could make this better

why didnt you make custom soft-slidertick?

here i got you covered https://puu.sh/wB6Il/63a3f5969b.rar use this, please. to keep players stick to the beat, that's what they reflect. Smaller slidertick doesn't help
I dont ask you to make them dissapear at all, Im saying that setting them to lower volume will improve emphasis of the sliders.

01:10:093 - stuff like this (i mean tick) gets me triggered so much, its just wrong and unacceptable for mapper like you to gave up on stuff like thsi Besides you I don't think anyone else have a problem with it

05:41:465 - pretty much the same things are going here just asking are you using hit-finish or stuff for slidertick default hitsound? Because the way you complain about them seems like it

2. emphasis and patternization
02:22:608 (4,1,2,3,4,5,6) - lets jump over here and look what is going on:

02:22:608 (4) - is a actual start of sound phrase ure emphasizing ^
why you nc'ed 02:22:779 (1) - ? its a mistake in my opinion

the actual sound phrase consists of pairs of sounds, and the last measure consists of 3
02:22:608 (4,1) -
02:22:951 (2,3) -
02:23:294 (4,5,6) -
so with these paris, the intensity is decreasing, but the volume is increasing
tho, emphasis isnt respected here:
02:22:779 (1,2) - should be like, smaller than 02:22:951 (2,3) - ? because 02:23:122 (3) - is a new pair, and its louder
you got what i mean right? I would have turned on distance snap while mapping this, but no. Mostly what I wanna show is the decreasing pitch, showing in every 2 objects spacing. That's all I wanna say.
please compare 02:22:608 - 02:25:522 - 02:28:094 - 02:44:551 - 02:47:294 -
the first measure has the issue mentioned above, others are not.
etc.


02:25:351 (4,1,2,3,4,5,6) - this time around its way better
02:28:265 - well yea please reconsider all these places, its just feels randomly bad (structure-wise) despite these sound phrases are really easy to put into some pattern or polygon not a fan of structuring everything
How is this even... logical? LOL yea dude the way you defending your map is absurdly bad. Not a fan of structure? WHat? ? ??


02:53:979 (1,1) - here goes my main concern of this map:
here you switching to 1/4 gap, suddenly
i basically cant see why you did 1/2 gaps on slider art section 00:37:007 (3,4) - , or just in common section 02:21:665 - why are you comparing 2 different rhythm part of the song?
why are you asking? amazing response


02:54:322 - this stuff... has 1.1x sv, 02:51:922 - 1.3x sv, why the hell on the earth would you put slow sliders on wubs there and put a circles under their ends? not all wubs have higher SV. Never had anyone created a rules of mapping dnb like that. My map, my choice of SV. If it's not ridiculously wrong, then I can use it. If it is wrong, it's not your turn to tell me it's wrong, I can figure that out myself
cool shit, ITS MY STYLE, I DONT CARE!!!!!!!!!!! i love it


i mean, yes i can see the progression form 1.1 to 1.5 (here 02:59:808 - ) but the way its done is absurdly poor:
02:54:322 - 02:57:065 - 02:59:808 - the way these are changing - is NOT the volume or intensity, its just sounds. differently, the way it should be reflected is mainly shape and distance/sv acceleration. SV increased following the pitch. Idk what you're talking about
yea i see, you basically dont understand theres a huge difference between 1.3>1.4>1.5>1.6 and 1.1>1.3>1.5
what im saying is that 02:53:979 (1,1) - these two has a huge contrast inbetween them, 02:54:322 (1) - these should be actually faster, because the previous section is way faster (gameplay-wise), and suddenly it drops in intensity, even tho 02:54:322 (1,2,3,4,5) - is a prominent thing in the entire song.


03:29:979 (2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - it actually hard to explain what is wrong with it, because like... i completely disagree with what u did here.
1. this 03:30:151 (3,4) - double makes the reading hard and its just bad emphatically because the 03:30:322 (4) - is a strong sound which should be emphasized i guess? it is not hard to read, and if you want I can copy paste 1 single pattern that satisfied you and apply it to each and every second of the song, and the map will never be ranked.
are you actually adequate? how is that meaningful? supporing strong beats improves emphasis and structure of your map. variety is a bad argument here, its just non-existent when it comes to main aspects of the mapping.
2. 03:30:837 - equals 03:30:151 - why its different? its really noticeable, i would suggest to 03:30:151 (3) - make this as slider-end, and 03:29:979 (2) - slider-start 03:29:979 (2,4,5,7) - aesthetically, no. I don't support just music, it's also aesthetics. No need to be fixed
What???? Youre saying that "structure doesnt matter" and now youre forcing aesthetics? what? dude cmon, its a mistake and we both know it.

03:49:179 (2) - nc here i guess? no
may i know why?


05:16:437 (3,4,1) - make them a bit lower from 05:16:265 (2) - so people would hit that tripple without cursor spikes? too linear pattern
So better to have a flow break here? Are u actually joking?

04:30:151 (2,1) - distance is too big here i think? considering previous and next sections. to emphasize the violin section
so youre making large DS to... emphasize violin (plain sound, not drop) ????

3. hitsounding and volume control
01:22:464 (4) - hitsound issue, its a definitely a mistake So you're calling the police, tell them to come to your house without any reason, will they come? I don't even understand why you call that a mistake
01:21:607 - basically it should be muted, it has the same volume as 01:21:778 - which is a mistake, since 01:21:607 - doesnt have a distinct sound behind it.
01:22:807 - has a whistle under it, which isnt supporter neither by song/rhythm you built


02:24:322 - stuff like this should be at least lowered volume-wise? hitfinish already made them weak enough. Also keeping the volume for better feedback, as they would know if it's 1/2 or 1/4 or 1/1
ok i can agree with this
01:46:779 - etc,
i mean, yea, please spend few hours to make them not that loud and underwhelming no
03:04:094 (1,2,3,4) - the way you hitsounded this is... hm. basically if u remove the notes, you gonna notice that there is similar pairs:
03:04:094 - 03:04:265 - 03:04:437 -03:04:608 - 03:04:779 -
now remove custom hitsounds and check how it sounds with default ones. its noticeable during the gameplay. it's fine to me
XD
03:28:608 - same issue^
inb4: hey, its up to user's skins, i dont care how it sounds with default ones.
many people (if not the most ones) are using their custom default hitsounds, which can contraddict your decision there.


4. rhythm
02:43:522 - quick example of how you could make the rhythm better (not ignoring the drops and making them clickable, because making them on slider ends isnt adequate i think, considering its 2017 outside and its 5* map) - https://puu.sh/wB7Gj/628449985c.png growl sound, no
clarify????????
02:54:579 - etc
its really tangible during the gameplay

Considering issues&suggestions above, I affirm that this map should be disqualified for further development.

Thanks for the look, but no DQ please thank you.

The way you responding is mostly "its fine, i dont care, my style, fuck off, no"

UH.... since you already got bns to qualify it, there are only TWO pages of mods, its not enough to polish this map entirely.

Let the mapper decide what is minor and what is not . It's not for you to decide. You achieve nothing by trying to shame the mapper for not listening to you / applying your mod.

I actually dont.

Even you arent that ignorant to just reply "no", without saying anything.

w/e, its not my deal now

basically i heard enough, since hes is replying without arguing, that means its no longer a productive discussion

the most painful thing, is that even being circlejerked, your map, mostrata, is significantly better than this one, cuz you at least tried to put some effort into it.
this one is the opposite situation.

w/e im done.

Thanks.

hi-mei wrote:

w/e, its not my deal now

w/e im done.

Thanks.
https://puu.sh/wB8SR/15b665e3a7.png

ha-ha my boii himei trying to DQ another map

Though, GZ with QUALIFY @Yamicchi

Hello, here to throw in a few cents from my point of view.

I'd like to preface this by saying this is purely my opinion. I'm trying to point out stuff that looks like it contradicts the rest of your map or the song itself, and if you disagree, please tell me why. I plan on explaining everything thoroughly (and maybe even over-the-top) to help you realize that all I want to do is help and improve your map. If you have any questions about my wording, or the point I'm trying to make, please just ask me whenever you get the chance. With all that being said, lets get into it.

[Dispersion of Lights]

1. 00:06:836 - to 00:39:579 - This section is more minor, but its still something that raises my concern. Generally, slider shapes are used to convey the song in a more in-depth manner. For slow and smooth parts, the song may have a lot of very gentle curved sliders with no sharp bends (maybe no red-ticks at all). Here, you use a big range of styles that don't really seem to have much concept to them. Shapes like 00:08:208 (2) - and 00:27:408 (4) - seem very cramped and tight for having so much space and room to work with. Sliders like 00:31:522 (3,4) - don't even really seem to have a connection other than a slight blanket of the slider-tail. I guess what I want to see in this section is some theme. You have this really pretty, yet somewhat mysterious wind-like noise that you're mapping sliders to. A lot of your sliders end up being jagged or have really sharp moments, when the song is very smooth and relaxed.
2. On the tail end of that previous note, sliders like: 00:56:208 (1) - are absolutely gorgeous and fit the song in such a pretty way. Maybe consider reworking 00:53:465 (1,1) - to be more smooth.
3. 01:01:694 (1,2) - This caught me off guard. Everything prior to now (in this slow string section) is a 1/4th gap. I kept assuming this was a 1/4th gap that you just put a lot of emphasis to. I recommend lengthening the slider by 1/4th and then moving the circle a bit closer (or even keep the gap for that matter) so that it's more intuitive with your previous rhythms.
4. 01:13:180 (2,3,4) - This pattern seems really odd to me, as you map the word always with a 1/2 slider, but when the word reappears, you have the strong beat "all" on a slider end and the weaker beat "ways" on a circle. A better rhythm (in my opinion) would be something like this:
   
5. 01:16:604 (3,1) - Why is this slider a 1/2 tick longer than the previous pattern? (01:11:122 (3,1) - ) In my opinion, it makes more sense to end it on the white tick like you did before.
6. 01:18:693 (1) - If this is NC'd, why isn't 01:13:180 (2) - this NC'd?
7. 01:18:693 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1) - Personally, I don't like this pattern very much. Looking at your previous patterns, you NC at the beginning of vocal phrases or in the middle of longer phrases (more or less). None of these 1,2 patterns are a new vocal phrase, its one long phrase. If you use your previous NCing pattern (where the next NC would be 01:21:778 - ), these 1,2 jumps look super out of place. I originally wanted you to change them to sliders, but I think that would take away from the increased intensity in the vocals. I think just reworking the pattern to be a bit more aesthetically interesting is a good path. Look below for a suggestion. I end up NC'ing half-way through as it still works with your NC concepts.
   
   ^

   
8. 01:20:750 (1) - This slider feels over-extended. The away breath ends on the white tick (01:21:435 - ) and the breathing in sound starts around 01:21:493 - ish. In my opinion, it's best to end this slider on the white tick (01:21:435 - ) and ignore the breathing. You ignore it at other places like here: 01:12:665 - 01:18:147 - etc.
9. 01:21:778 (2) - Why isn't this NC'd? It's the start of a new vocal phrase.
10. 01:23:495 (1) - Why do you use a spinner over the vocal changes here? It's nothing I'm super fussed about, but it confuses me a bit.
11. 01:52:608 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - It feels weird for this to be the only pattern out of 4 to not have more of a verticle-horizontal patterning. Why is this one different?
12. 01:57:065 (3,4,1,2,3) - It feels like we're starting to build up to this high-tension part, so why do we get such close spacing? I'm fine with something along the lines of 01:58:437 (3,4) - but the rest of this just feels cluttered.
13. 02:00:837 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - What is this pattern? Compared to 02:03:579 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - , it has a lower pitch and less musical emphasis, yet you gave it more emphasis and larger spacing. My suggestion would be to nerf 02:00:837 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - a lot and make it more like 02:03:579 (1,2,3,4,5,6) -, while buffing 02:03:579 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - slightly.
14. 02:06:322 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - This one doesn't even follow the same string pattern you've been following for the past 10 seconds or so. I recommend making it similar to the last place I mentioned (02:03:579 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - ).
15. 02:21:065 - to 02:32:037 - regarding 02:22:608 (4,1,2,3,4,5,6) - these patterns. I really love the concept you're going for here. I think some sort of decreasing spacing pattern works quite well for the sound. With that being said, the noises themselves are much more intense than the low spacing these patterns generally end on. Additionally, 02:22:608 (4) - is the start of the synth melody, not 02:22:779 (1) - so you NC'd in the wrong place. I'd say the spacing in 02:25:351 (4,1,2,3,4,5,6) - this pattern is closer to what the rest of these patterns should look like. It never gets too small but you still get a good feel for the concept.
16. By the way, that NC issue I mentioned here regarding 02:22:608 (4,1,2,3,4,5,6) - about the 4 being part of the synth pattern is basically an issue (if you consider it that) everywhere.
17. 03:29:979 (2,3,4,5,6,7) - 03:32:722 (2,3,4,5) - What are you following here? Why don't you follow the very pronounced synth like you do 03:38:208 (1,2,3,4,5) - there? Thats a much better representation of the music and you do it pretty well. I can't even hear what rhythm you're mapping to for the spots I mentioned.
18. 04:10:779 - to 04:29:979 - . You've done a really great job at representing the slowly building intensity in this section. I honestly love what it's trying to do. My issue here is the rhythm. The actual rhythm of this section is a very straight forward one somewhat like you've done here: 04:10:951 (2,3,4,5,6) - . And don't get me wrong, I'd hate to play that pattern for 19 seconds straight, so I understand why you create variations in rhythms. What I fail to see is why you change rhythms so sporadically. There doesn't seem to be much of a pattern behind it, so the player (like myself) struggles to maintain acc/rhythm as he never knows if he's going to get a triple, kick jumps, whatever. Patterns like 04:17:637 (1,2,3) - completely baffle me as well, as the 1 AND 3 don't even have a noise on their slider ends! While I love the way this section builds up to the end of the kiai, I think you need to remap it. It's not a completely dense stream and the rhythm isn't so generic that you can do whatever you want here. Come up with one or two variations and CONSISTENTLY switch back and forth between them. Make sure to not ignore the actual rhythm, don't overmap like you've done here.
19. 05:05:637 (1,2) - What causes you to start using this stack pattern and then shortly switch back to 05:11:122 (1,2) - the other one a few measures later? Is it just for variation? I think it removes a lot of intensity in this section.
20. That about covers it. This mapping style isn't my cup of tea so I didn't nitpick it too much, I just tried to focus on consistency/rhythm/patterning issues I saw that seemed wrong in general, rather than just your style. Like I said earlier, if you have any questions, I'll be around (except for an exam tomorrow)!

Good luck!

you probably misunderstood me when i said "not my deal"
w/e

Cryptic wrote:

Hello, here to throw in a few cents from my point of view.

I'd like to preface this by saying this is purely my opinion. I'm trying to point out stuff that looks like it contradicts the rest of your map or the song itself, and if you disagree, please tell me why. I plan on explaining everything thoroughly (and maybe even over-the-top) to help you realize that all I want to do is help and improve your map. If you have any questions about my wording, or the point I'm trying to make, please just ask me whenever you get the chance. With all that being said, lets get into it.

[Dispersion of Lights]

1. 00:06:836 - to 00:39:579 - This section is more minor, but its still something that raises my concern. Generally, slider shapes are used to convey the song in a more in-depth manner. For slow and smooth parts, the song may have a lot of very gentle curved sliders with no sharp bends (maybe no red-ticks at all). Here, you use a big range of styles that don't really seem to have much concept to them. Shapes like 00:08:208 (2) - and 00:27:408 (4) - seem very cramped and tight for having so much space and room to work with. Sliders like 00:31:522 (3,4) - don't even really seem to have a connection other than a slight blanket of the slider-tail. I guess what I want to see in this section is some theme. You have this really pretty, yet somewhat mysterious wind-like noise that you're mapping sliders to. A lot of your sliders end up being jagged or have really sharp moments, when the song is very smooth and relaxed. Ok about this, I've explained stuffs before but. This is my opinion. Slider shape is just for visual effect, as no one force you to go exactly in the slider direction, such as sharp corner like 00:08:208 (2) -. What really matters is the cursor movement here. And I believe there is not a problem with the cursor movement at all. The slow SV is like 80% enough to express the calm section here already. If you ask for a 100% then no I don't think there has been any map which could satisfied that perfection. Besides, there will be an extremely boring slider section if I chose soft and smooth slider only. It's like 1 minute with just sliders, can't I create any diversity for it? Finally, just to clarify, even if I have to change stuffs I won't change my sliderarts.
2. On the tail end of that previous note, sliders like: 00:56:208 (1) - are absolutely gorgeous and fit the song in such a pretty way. Maybe consider reworking 00:53:465 (1,1) - to be more smooth. may I not reply to this, because I've stated all my thoughts up there^ thank you
3. 01:01:694 (1,2) - This caught me off guard. Everything prior to now (in this slow string section) is a 1/4th gap. I kept assuming this was a 1/4th gap that you just put a lot of emphasis to. I recommend lengthening the slider by 1/4th and then moving the circle a bit closer (or even keep the gap for that matter) so that it's more intuitive with your previous rhythms. yes this is a bit surprised, but I don't feel like making 1/4 pattern, stacking a circle beneath a slider end here is better. It is even more surprised tho, because this is the first circle in the section. The reason why I chose to make 1/2 is because I can use spacing emphasis easily instead of stack, and with the spacing I made people will recognize the 1/2 beat (because it's not stacked as 1/4, also not far enough to be 1/1, and the spacing like that is similar as I used them in the section before the first spinner). Also yes, this is the reason why I chose not to make the slidertick volume too small. It is for players to keep the beat and for easier to recognize the 1/2 here
4. 01:13:180 (2,3,4) - This pattern seems really odd to me, as you map the word always with a 1/2 slider, but when the word reappears, you have the strong beat "all" on a slider end and the weaker beat "ways" on a circle. A better rhythm (in my opinion) would be something like this:
   yes the pattern is great and consistent, but I prefer not to, as the always pitch is not the same. The second one has lower and even pitch, while the first one goes up, with higher pitch. Besides using a circle emphasized the 01:15:233 (1) - better,
   a lot imo.
5. 01:16:604 (3,1) - Why is this slider a 1/2 tick longer than the previous pattern? (01:11:122 (3,1) - ) In my opinion, it makes more sense to end it on the white tick like you did before. to create difference between parts. It's going to a different part, which has higher vocal, higher intensity (not a lot, but enough to recognize). So using a 1/2 gap to increase the intensity, why not?
6. 01:18:693 (1) - If this is NC'd, why isn't 01:13:180 (2) - this NC'd? there is a small change in offset, eventho it's small but still recognizable, and I wanna create combo colors in pairs for 01:18:693 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - as you can see.
7. 01:18:693 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1) - Personally, I don't like this pattern very much. Looking at your previous patterns, you NC at the beginning of vocal phrases or in the middle of longer phrases (more or less). None of these 1,2 patterns are a new vocal phrase, its one long phrase. If you use your previous NCing pattern (where the next NC would be 01:21:778 - ), these 1,2 jumps look super out of place. I originally wanted you to change them to sliders, but I think that would take away from the increased intensity in the vocals. I think just reworking the pattern to be a bit more aesthetically interesting is a good path. Look below for a suggestion. I end up NC'ing half-way through as it still works with your NC concepts. Sorry I actually disagree with the way you NC it.
   The pattern is emphasized for every 2 beats, as to emphasize the most common words in the song. Firstly, there's nothing wrong with that. Seconly, NC 01:21:778 (2) - here doesn't make sense either. If i have to NC it would be 01:22:121 (3) - here, but the pitch is not even high enough to NC. Finally, I believe keeping the NC like this is enough. There's nothing major to be considered or fixed.
   
   ^

   
8. 01:20:750 (1) - This slider feels over-extended. The away breath ends on the white tick (01:21:435 - ) and the breathing in sound starts around 01:21:493 - ish. In my opinion, it's best to end this slider on the white tick (01:21:435 - ) and ignore the breathing. You ignore it at other places like here: 01:12:665 - 01:18:147 - etc. that's because I didn't use the sliders for previous breathing, as you stated them out. I learned that sliderend is also a beat.
   So it would be better to map it according to an actual sound that's considered "beat" or at least audible. Ending it on white tick, while having a sliderend for nothing is not really what I'm aiming to do.
9. 01:21:778 (2) - Why isn't this NC'd? It's the start of a new vocal phrase. it's 3/1 gap from the last vocal doesn't mean it's a new phrase,
   more like a pedal, which mean what I should NC is 01:22:121 (3) - this instead, but if I NC it the concept would be overusing as I'm NC-ing every 2 objects for 01:18:693 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - to emphasize them. It'd be meaningless to keep on NC here, that's why I chose not to
10. 01:23:495 (1) - Why do you use a spinner over the vocal changes here? It's nothing I'm super fussed about, but it confuses me a bit. it's just the bpm changes bothers me, so I chose to have a spinner. That way it can end a section perfectly. It's just it
11. 01:52:608 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - It feels weird for this to be the only pattern out of 4 to not have more of a verticle-horizontal patterning. Why is this one different? Diversity. Also what I mainly want to do is emphasize every 1,3,5 beat instead. Also, I just ran out of consistent idea and came up with a unique one instead
12. 01:57:065 (3,4,1,2,3) - It feels like we're starting to build up to this high-tension part, so why do we get such close spacing? I'm fine with something along the lines of 01:58:437 (3,4) - but the rest of this just feels cluttered. except for the long sound going on, there's nothing more of intensity here. This is the only pattern in a section that I follow vocal because the violin is not clear enough, so I believe I haven't created any standard for vocal spacing yet, which is why you can't really consider this as "close".
13. 02:00:837 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - What is this pattern? Compared to 02:03:579 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - , it has a lower pitch and less musical emphasis, yet you gave it more emphasis and larger spacing. My suggestion would be to nerf 02:00:837 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - a lot and make it more like 02:03:579 (1,2,3,4,5,6) -, while buffing 02:03:579 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - slightly. the small spacing is to end up a main-violin section and comes to a section with drums. Yes comparing 2 patterns it might be wrong but talking about emphasis this is not wrong
14. 02:06:322 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - This one doesn't even follow the same string pattern you've been following for the past 10 seconds or so. I recommend making it similar to the last place I mentioned (02:03:579 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - ). not really, because this pattern includes the big drums, I should make a bit of difference for it
15. 02:21:065 - to 02:32:037 - regarding 02:22:608 (4,1,2,3,4,5,6) - these patterns. I really love the concept you're going for here. I think some sort of decreasing spacing pattern works quite well for the sound. With that being said, the noises themselves are much more intense than the low spacing these patterns generally end on. Additionally, 02:22:608 (4) - is the start of the synth melody, not 02:22:779 (1) - so you NC'd in the wrong place. I'd say the spacing in 02:25:351 (4,1,2,3,4,5,6) - this pattern is closer to what the rest of these patterns should look like. It never gets too small but you still get a good feel for the concept. I don't really get what you want to say, but I'll explain this once and never again. There are 2 ways to map this pattern, one is NCing 4 and starts decreasing spacing with it. Another is mine, which mainly focus on white tick beats instead. Eventho the pitch decrease for pairs like 02:22:608 (4,1) - 02:22:951 (2,3) - 02:23:294 (4,5) - but there is still a press in 1,3,5, eventho they are the last one in each pairs. Either way are good, but I prefer this way much better.
16. By the way, that NC issue I mentioned here regarding 02:22:608 (4,1,2,3,4,5,6) - about the 4 being part of the synth pattern is basically an issue (if you consider it that) everywhere. I would consider this as a pedal to lead into the pattern I'm talking about ^ more than being part of synth pattern. That's why I don't NC it
17. 03:29:979 (2,3,4,5,6,7) - 03:32:722 (2,3,4,5) - What are you following here? Why don't you follow the very pronounced synth like you do 03:38:208 (1,2,3,4,5) - there? Thats a much better representation of the music and you do it pretty well. I can't even hear what rhythm you're mapping to for the spots I mentioned. I am not following anything except for the kicks and snares. The wevwev sound on every 3/2 beat (ah how to describe it...) is not important enough yet. I actually ignored them, and just simply express the kicks and snares using spacing, and free map other beats, which are kinda similar,
    so that's not the basis to judge my pattern.
18. 04:10:779 - to 04:29:979 - . You've done a really great job at representing the slowly building intensity in this section. I honestly love what it's trying to do. My issue here is the rhythm. The actual rhythm of this section is a very straight forward one somewhat like you've done here: 04:10:951 (2,3,4,5,6) - . And don't get me wrong, I'd hate to play that pattern for 19 seconds straight, so I understand why you create variations in rhythms. What I fail to see is why you change rhythms so sporadically. There doesn't seem to be much of a pattern behind it, so the player (like myself) struggles to maintain acc/rhythm as he never knows if he's going to get a triple, kick jumps, whatever. Patterns like 04:17:637 (1,2,3) - completely baffle me as well, as the 1 AND 3 don't even have a noise on their slider ends! While I love the way this section builds up to the end of the kiai, I think you need to remap it. It's not a completely dense stream and the rhythm isn't so generic that you can do whatever you want here. Come up with one or two variations and CONSISTENTLY switch back and forth between them. Make sure to not ignore the actual rhythm, don't overmap like you've done here.
    04:10:779 - to 04:15:751 -: Except for 04:11:894 - 04:13:265 - 04:13:637 - I mapped as sliderend to emphasized consistently the switch from every 4 white ticks section to another. 04:17:979 (3) - is ctrl+g due to snares, and is possible to do something to represent it. 04:19:008 - sounds like a stream because I wanna overmap it a bit to express the long soung started there. 04:21:751 - same pattern combo for every 4 white ticks, if you could notice that. Also, if you can play 5.2-5.5* map well you can easily read what is coming tbh, I'm not saying that you're bad at playing, but the fact is that, unless you're a pp farmer like me. So basically having variation in patterns to create diverisity, I think I did great. No remap
    
19. 05:05:637 (1,2) - What causes you to start using this stack pattern and then shortly switch back to 05:11:122 (1,2) - the other one a few measures later? Is it just for variation? I think it removes a lot of intensity in this section. to express the drums going on better than jumping rapidly. I switched back in order for players to repair for the final drop.
20. That about covers it. This mapping style isn't my cup of tea so I didn't nitpick it too much, I just tried to focus on consistency/rhythm/patterning issues I saw that seemed wrong in general, rather than just your style. Like I said earlier, if you have any questions, I'll be around (except for an exam tomorrow)!

Good luck!

Thanks for taking your time looking at this map!

Vocals remind me of Linkin Park lul.

Honestly I don't really understand the complains here, I played the map and it felt completely fine, though not as cool as the previous maps Yamicchi made

Stjpa wrote:

Vocals remind me of Linkin Park lul.

Honestly I don't really understand the complains here, I played the map and it felt completely fine, though not as cool as the previous maps Yamicchi made

You made my day uwu

I miss Teminite lol

Btw, gratz on Qualified :3