Monstrata wrote:

@Kagetsu: A lot of analysis and discussion has gone into this map's patterning and playability so it is a disservice to everyone here if you just give a blanket statement that it's "unplayable" without giving specifics for me to explain to you.

Kagetsu wrote:

the current ar is far too low. it feels like playing a 190~ bpm map at ar 8.5 which is obviously not the best setting when it comes to smoothly read the patterns.

kobolddragon wrote:

Kagetsu wrote:

the current ar is far too low. it feels like playing a 190~ bpm map at ar 8.5 which is obviously not the best setting when it comes to smoothly read the patterns.

Isn't the map currently AR10? That's what it says for the current pending version lol.
Hopefully I'm not taking your statement out of context.

kobolddragon wrote:

Kagetsu wrote:

the current ar is far too low. it feels like playing a 190~ bpm map at ar 8.5 which is obviously not the best setting when it comes to smoothly read the patterns.

Isn't the map currently AR10? That's what it says for the current pending version lol.
Hopefully I'm not taking your statement out of context.

Kagetsu wrote:

i'm remarking these two because i believe they have a lot to do with the map playablity.

but the transition is just unpredictable.


not because it isn't supported by the music, but rather because it's unplayable.


i believe unplayable maps doesn't fit the ranked section,


need a complete rework in order to make it playable,

Kagetsu wrote:

please note that i mentioned the loved section with the sole purpose of proving that there was no decent scores on this map, i consider a map playable when the player can get 98% or more acc. this was definitely not the case.
if you want a deeper explanation about why the playability of this map is bad, i would have to say that it's a sum of things: first would be the editor limitations, you've stated that there are players who are capable of playing maps around this speed, the fact that you're not considering, though, is that they do it with dt, where you can play at higher ar and od. i'm remarking these two because i believe they have a lot to do with the map playablity. the current ar is far too low. it feels like playing a 190~ bpm map at ar 8.5 which is obviously not the best setting when it comes to smoothly read the patterns. it's debatable whether or not we should choose upon not the best way of making things because of the editor limitations, you might have your own opinion as well as i can have mine.

Kagetsu wrote:

another point: we all know this a complex song, and as such, it will always tend to be harder to play than common songs, what i don't understand though, is why you're using such a bad transitions when changing the bpm, for example, on 02:55:471 - this section, the bpm increases by 14 units yet you decided to use full screen jumps, which aren't bad in paper, because the music is strong enough to support jumps, but the transition is just unpredictable. you could've been considered a smoother way to put these sections together, by using less spacing/pasive objects or whatnot.
i consider this specific pattern 02:55:471 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1) - as near to impossible to hit (unless you're using touchscreen), the distance is just too much and the rotations aren't the best either, you might argue that you're using "uncomfortable movement" in order to accentuate the music, but the truth is that the higher the bpm is, the less you feel the difference between awkward and non-awkward movements, this is because the bpm makes all the beats awkward to play already. the worst transition here would be 02:55:787 (2) - to 02:55:893 (1) - especially because the rotation changes on 02:55:893 (1) - which makes it very hard to hit. you might want to move 02:55:999 (2) - somewhere to the up side of the screen in order to "fix" that.
in any case, the distance is still something debatable, again, not because it isn't supported by the music, but rather because it's unplayable. i'm pretty sure there's no one that can consistently hit this pattern 3 times in a row when going throughout the entire map, otherwise prove me wrong.

Kagetsu wrote:

i believe unplayable maps doesn't fit the ranked section, and that's why tag4 maps were moved to the loved one. believe it or not, your map shares some similarities with tag4 maps: difficult patterns, rough movements, high spaced objects combined with a very high object density in the screen (this due to low ar considering how fast the bpm is) etc.
now i'm not saying that mapping this song is completely impossible, but it would need a complete rework in order to make it playable, because nerfing some patterns would end up unbalancing the map.

about how countering the veto, i honestly think that we won''t reach an agreement, i'm just using my right to vote about whether or not this map should be qualified, i've decided upon no. the veto system is nothing more than a voting system after all.

Ephemeral wrote:

if you have nothing constructive to say - say nothing.

will start handing out large silences to people who don't understand this. contribute meaningfully to the map by helping out instead of arguing over each other's opinions plz

Kagetsu wrote:

Monstrata wrote:

@Kagetsu: A lot of analysis and discussion has gone into this map's patterning and playability so it is a disservice to everyone here if you just give a blanket statement that it's "unplayable" without giving specifics for me to explain to you.

please note that i mentioned the loved section with the sole purpose of proving that there was no decent scores on this map, i consider a map playable when the player can get 98% or more acc. this was definitely not the case.
if you want a deeper explanation about why the playability of this map is bad, i would have to say that it's a sum of things: first would be the editor limitations, you've stated that there are players who are capable of playing maps around this speed, the fact that you're not considering, though, is that they do it with dt, where you can play at higher ar and od. i'm remarking these two because i believe they have a lot to do with the map playablity. the current ar is far too low. it feels like playing a 190~ bpm map at ar 8.5 which is obviously not the best setting when it comes to smoothly read the patterns. it's debatable whether or not we should choose upon not the best way of making things because of the editor limitations, you might have your own opinion as well as i can have mine. We discussed everything here in the irc.
another point: we all know this a complex song, and as such, it will always tend to be harder to play than common songs, what i don't understand though, is why you're using such a bad transitions when changing the bpm, for example, on 02:55:471 - this section, the bpm increases by 14 units yet you decided to use full screen jumps, which aren't bad in paper, because the music is strong enough to support jumps, but the transition is just unpredictable. you could've been considered a smoother way to put these sections together, by using less spacing/pasive objects or whatnot. This has been analyzed in detail already. Please refer to Hobbes2's analysis of it on: p/6145650. They are indeed playable, and the transition is very much anticipated because the repeating up/downward sliders train the player to move upward on the next circle, and therefore, downward again the circle after.
This is already very smooth.
i consider this specific pattern 02:55:471 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1) - as near to impossible to hit (unless you're using touchscreen), the distance is just too much and the rotations aren't the best either, you might argue that you're using "uncomfortable movement" in order to accentuate the music, but the truth is that the higher the bpm is, the less you feel the difference between awkward and non-awkward movements, this is because the bpm makes all the beats awkward to play already. the worst transition here would be 02:55:787 (2) - to 02:55:893 (1) - especially because the rotation changes on 02:55:893 (1) - which makes it very hard to hit. you might want to move 02:55:999 (2) - somewhere to the up side of the screen in order to "fix" that. The rotation does not change at all... The jumps are symmetrical so all rotations are mathematically constant... It's the same difficulty as every other jump that's off-center symmetrical.
in any case, the distance is still something debatable, again, not because it isn't supported by the music, but rather because it's unplayable. i'm pretty sure there's no one that can consistently hit this pattern 3 times in a row when going throughout the entire map, otherwise prove me wrong.

i believe unplayable maps doesn't fit the ranked section, and that's why tag4 maps were moved to the loved one. believe it or not, your map shares some similarities with tag4 maps: difficult patterns, rough movements, high spaced objects combined with a very high object density in the screen (this due to low ar considering how fast the bpm is) etc.
now i'm not saying that mapping this song is completely impossible, but it would need a complete rework in order to make it playable, because nerfing some patterns would end up unbalancing the map.

about how countering the veto, i honestly think that we won''t reach an agreement, i'm just using my right to vote about whether or not this map should be qualified, i've decided upon no. the veto system is nothing more than a voting system after all.

Itasha_S13 wrote:

I don't really like jumps on 00:54:726 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - considering 00:51:250 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1) - 00:58:150 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - 01:01:580 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - because pattern on 00:54:726 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - doesn't move.. like the jumps are static in the same side of the screen unlike the others that makes a movement, it fits the song. but 00:54:726 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - doesnt do that. I think something like this would fit better and keep the idea of that moving Im talking about to fit the guitar https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/8647226 i think the current positioning is fine, and the sections are seprated enough not to feel that related. Also the jumps are quite central, of course a bit to the left, but not to the point where its disorientating or cumbersome to hand positioning.
01:07:259 (1) - check timing on this I think its a bit late It was slightly late, i adjusted a bit for good measure.

Gokateigo wrote:

mod

1. 00:01:621 - this sound fuck my ears, if you want to map ugly things don't do a perfect curve This is all part of establishing a baseline aesthetic. There needs to be something that demonstrates the map is breaking apart as the vocals kick in and the song becomes more clearly harsher.
2. 00:17:766 (1,2,3,4) - nice curves/square for an ugly map ^
3. 00:38:356 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4) - perfect pentagons are bad for an ugly map ^ Though i ended up fixing it to something else
4. 00:51:250 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - back and forths fit better here and it'll be moe playable This is also back and forths. and this plays just fine.
   It's just angled a bit to help with transitioning to the side of the screen.
5. 00:58:150 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - ^ No. THis is perfectly fine and they are already back and forths, they just also have movements that go in a singular direction.
6. 01:01:580 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - ^ ^ honestly see nothing wrong.
7. 01:06:090 (1) - this spinner is full of strong sounds I want to use a spinner because people will still play spinners as a fast gameplay element. When you see a spinner, you move really fast, you don't sit idly by so the intensity is kept. I don't want to use streams because the timing is really messed up, and the section doesn't call for intense rhythm because they are preceded by slow sliders.
8. 01:10:902 (1) - ^ ^
9. 01:15:702 (1) - ^ ^
10. 01:23:493 (1) - ctrl g ? + redo the pattern if you do it No, I want the patterns to be asymmetrical. It creates some uneasiness in the object placement that the player is now accustomed to.
11. 01:25:434 (6) - map something ugly here the vocals are different Okay sure, applied to the two below too.
12. 01:27:148 (5) - ^
13. 01:28:862 (5) - ^
14. 01:38:058 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - this (and the other similar patterns) are the worst thing in the map, you can do ugly things which look good, you should do ugly slider-same slider reversed-ugly slider-... it'll look good but it'll be ugly I absolutely disagree then. I think they are the best thing in the map honestly.
15. 01:41:487 (1) - for all this part : nc on bpm changes no thanks, I don't want to NC just for bpm changes. My NC is rhythmic. the bpm changes aren't rhythmic and not predictable so its best to give players a visual rhythm to keep with. The BPM changes are very slight too, mainly due to offset shifts that ended up being recalculated for bpms.
16. 02:02:564 (2,3,4,5) - do a normal jump maybe ? the sounds are strong and this part is pretty calm Nah, I like this arrangement a lot better. it's small, but still forces players to make 90 degree snaps or alternates.
17. 02:25:494 (1,2,3,4,5) - it's not enough spaced, it's just before a fast part I think this is perfectly fine. Just because its before a fast part doesn't mean it should be faster if the atmosphere doesn't really suggest ain increase. really, the song doesn't really explode until the downbeat so creating abuildup effect wont work here, especially when theres a 2/1 gap.
18. 02:51:908 (1,1) - make this possible to hit with a point where you can put your cusor and wait, it's pretty hard at 280bpm No. I want the player to have to move up and down.
19. 02:55:471 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1) - all the transition snares have a little spacing but this one is cross screen and really hard to play, why ? This is the high point of the map before the transition and there is a lot of build up going into it.
20. 03:07:390 (1) - it reminds me of ugly sliders,... in the calm part It's not... You see sliders like this all the time in regular maps.
21. 03:15:390 (1,2) - clockwise 03:16:390 (3,4,5,6) - counter clockwise, why ? Flow shift...?
22. 03:31:498 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - ^ but goes counter clockwise/clockwise Why is this even important? I'm just switching flows to make things more enjoyable.
23. 03:45:634 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - "ugly" part callback and it's perfect squares, it should be a bit ugly No.
    This is all part of the winny upload section which is the pretty section. The map is divided by genre please, not by the vocal, which isnt even harsh here.
24. 04:09:581 - this part is singed by the guy of the ugly part, it should be (again) a bit ugly No, for the same reasons as above.
25. 04:32:302 (1,2,3,4) - nc no thanks. why?
26. 04:33:754 (1) - (and similar sliders) no, it's just bad, all the stop stop before are 2 normal sliders, but it changes at a random moment It's not a random moment, its the final verse. im using slider art as a means to emphasyze the lyrics and the song instead of just regular mapping because I think this is a more creative approach.

my opinion

This map sucks tbh, you shitmapped a huge part because you think metal is disgusting, Mazzerin maps death metal and thinks song representation is more important than aesthetics. His maps are NOT ugly af, they are a bit ugly sometimes (with really ugly sounds, not everything) but his style fits very well to metal, you should map something similar to his style in the "ugly" part and map ugly sliders when they are in the middle of the calm part because you can't change your style for 2 objects. If you map something like this I'll bee happy if it's ranked, it's just a random shit map atm for me

gl I guess

Painketsu wrote:

I don't mind this map's aesthetics or concept at all, I think variety is always good and I disagree with the popular idea that a map being clean makes it good.

Gonna do a small flow and cursor movement mod since I feel like it's where the map has most flaws.

1. 00:28:922 (1,2,3,4) - this little square kinda kills the cursor speed built up previously and aesthetically feels out of place, I think an irregular shape with a bit more spacing (same movement is fine) would be better. I gave a better angle from 3>4>5 to offset the movement a bit so there doesn't need to be as much precision in maintaining a linear movement from 4>5
   
2. 00:32:760 (3) - I don't see much reason for this to be ctrl+Gd, this will be prone to confuse players causing a late hit, please keep in mind that with how the game works right now you need to hit this slider a bit early otherwise it will reach the first repeat and cause a sliderbreak even if it's within the hit window (first repeat is 54ms after the start so with this OD that means you'd break if you hit basically anything later than a 300). it's because the previous sliders were really big in spacing. Also the Ctrl+G is better because you are naturally going to move upward playing the slider given the inward flow,
   which helps keep you from breaking.
   
3. 00:38:356 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4) - this doesn't fit at all imo, you theme almost all sliders "ugly" and with uneven spacings but this a "perfect shape", I think this comes from you being used to mapping like this (not saying it's a bad thing) but imo this pattern is out of place here, I'd personally go with something more in tone with the map's theme and difficulty, check this for an idea: https://gfycat.com/gifs/detail/HotOpulentGosling And more importantly than aesthetics, using a cursor-snap-based small jump section is a great setup for the next big one here 00:40:385 (2) - your current pattern is based on constant circle movement so it doesn't transition very well. I fixed it, though its still a pretty pattern because I want to show the visual breaking apart as the voice becomes harsher and tenser.
   
4. 00:40:385 (2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4) - I think you could improve this flow to be less awkward but it's not terrible so I wont go into detail unless requested. I think its already fine as is/..
   
5. 01:01:258 (4,5,6,1) - this almost square-like flow is one of the most awkward in the whole map, this comes after a whole section of acute angled jumps, I think this can be improved, first thing that comes to mind would be 01:01:258 (4) - on x:163 y:326, 01:01:366 (5) - on x:319 y:233, 01:01:473 (6) - on x:30 y:189 and 01:01:580 (1) - a bit closer to 01:01:794 (3) - , the reduced spacing from 6 to 1 increses the emphasis of the back and forths making them more powerful. Fixed it.
   
6. 02:25:494 (1,2,3,4,5) - I disagree with this shape, aesthetics aside, I don't see how this would play better than angled jumps and they would fit better imo. Its there for juxtaposition with the next section. It just makes the kicksliders in the next section stand out more than they would if i used an ugly pattern. Also i think this arrangement can kind of be alternated and give people a sensation that maybe they can alternate stuff but nope.

I think it's a hard map but it's not unplayable by any means, shouldn't be unrankable imo

CXu wrote:

Have you thought about mapping in a way where each pattern/combo is messy, but how the patterns/combos interact with each other on the playfield is more organized? While the song is indeed, well, "messy", it does have an overarching structure as music mostly do with just how it's structured. Since you're trying to make the patterns ugly to reflect the song, making the patterns the patterns make more organized (?? lolidk) could improve the map aesthetically while still keeping the core idea of ugly vs not ugly. You have some more structural mapping in there already. At least it sounds like a good idea in my head xd

So like idk doing something like this at 01:39:451 (1) -

SPOILER

The slider on its own is still ugly, but it doesn't bleed into the previous sliderpattern, so they can more easily be seen in isolation, if that makes sense.

Just a thought, and it would be quite a bit of work if you were to do this, but I might as well throw the idea out there.

LimePixel wrote:

Honestly, can't pass the map but from playing with NF I really enjoyed it. It's pretty obvious why it's mapped so differently, and I think song representation is more important than aesthetics.

Small possible problems I noticed:
-02:56:316 (1) - This is touching the health bar slightly It's fine to touch the health bar and I think this arrangement is good for symmetry and works well as the final jump location.
-04:30:366 (3,4,5,6) - This felt odd, there's no major difference in anything for 04:30:610 (4) to be emphasized with higher spacing I think its fine, i'm just using a spacing here thats more reflective of the pattern (hexagon) and not really respecting emphasis. It's fine imo cuz i think respecting emphasis everywhere on this section of the map becomes a bit predictable and boring too.

I don't see why this wouldn't be rankable, since it accurately represents the song. Besides, only mapping in the usual 'safe' way (or pp mapping, with tv size songs) is going to result in player burnout and tons of the same map with different songs behind them.

Gokateigo wrote:

ok last post in this thread since all of you can't understand my point and I'm bored of repeating the same thing everything

• I know this map is made to be ugly, I know a lot of people like it (even if the user rating says the opposite but whatever), I know Monstrata knows what he's doing with the editor so stop saying I'm an ignorant because you're wrong
  
  BUT

1. The gimmick is pushed too far sometimes, especially at the kickslider part : it can be ugly and good at the same time, I've already explained it in my mod, i won't say it again (fuck I'm lazy)
2. The gimmick isn't used in some ugly parts, I looked at the map and modded it with the gimmick in head, sometimes the map has good patterns (perfect angles, flows perfectly...) in ugly parts like these perfect pentagons here 00:38:356 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5) - or the squares here 03:45:634 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - it's not a really ugly part with the vocals etc, but it uses the same instruments + the high sound in the bg literally fuck your ears
3. The gimmick is a bit useless/wrong : Ok, contrast, bla bla bla, I know, but the contrast is just obvious with the difficulty 8*/4* not obvious enough ? ok, there are a few ways to map metal like Mazzerin's style "omg you suck Mazz's dick kys" first : fuck you and it was an example, Maakeli is also a good metal mapper, pishi is a good metal mapper, Sayaka is a good metal mapper (restricted for shit but we're not here to talk about that). You get my point, there are other ways to map this and they're all better
4. Some jumps are weird and uncomfortable : "it's the point of the map lol" It can be ugly and comfortable, some jumps look like normal patterns (triangles, stars,...) but with extended ds for spacing emphasis, back and forths/really sharp angles/wide angles are better than this imo and can be ugly
5. Some patterns have nosense spacing : thinking especially about these 00:58:150 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - the DS goes at weird spots, it's just 2 (maybe 3) repeated sounds so the ds shouldn't change that much (+ 01:01:580 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - this one is just too spaced)
   I'm also thinking about this one 04:33:754 (1) - this part was just 2 sliders 1/2 for stop stop and it's reverse sliders at a random point

Ok this is literally my mod but extended, but now eveything is justified I guess (inb4 some fanboy saying I'm totally wrong) (I'll only answer to real posts now, not the usual "lol your opinion doesn't matter here")

Logic Agent wrote:

i don't care about any of this drama but i think there's an aesthetic inconsistency you might consider changing unless it was intentional.

00:17:766 and 01:22:624 are obviously supposed to be similar with the whole guitar going ham and the vocals increasing in intensity, however in the first section you start using "ugly" 1/2 sliders way sooner than you do in the second section. 00:23:986 (5) Here is the first to show that some kind of aesthetic change is gonna start and then after that the last slider in every group of four is ugly.

01:30:362 (4) - but here you waited until pretty far into the section to start making slightly ugly sliders to indicate the change again, maybe cause the section itself is longer before the vocals start yelling again? i dunno, just something i thought i'd ask about. don't mind me if it was intentional/ you've already brought it up, but you could probably start doing slightly ugly ones 01:27:148 (5) here or something.

but yeah, good luck with... all this. my opinion on this map has changed significantly since i voted it a 1/10 almost a year ago

Kurai wrote:

Just throwing things I believe should really be fixed. I did not take into account the "beauty" of the patterns.

[Stop! Stop Winny Upload!!]

1. 01:40:844 (2) - Overlapped by the HP bar with the default skin. Fixed this
2. 01:58:499 (1) - Shouldn't be a normal finish? yea
3. 02:27:195 (1,2,3,4) - I really dislike how those kick sliders are overlapped by the previous ones. 1 also slightly overlaps 3 and 2 overlaps 4 as well. I understand you probably did that on purpose, but it's hardly sightreadable and more confusing than anything when you could have made it easier to read just like 02:28:885 (1,2,3,4) - . Well, they are still overlapped, but i made the heads more visible.
4. 02:37:902 (2,3,4) - Slightly overlapped by the HP bar with the default skin. Moved it down slightly
5. 02:40:244 (2) - Slightly overlapped by the HP bar with the default skin. ^
6. 02:56:316 (1) - Slightly overlapped by the HP bar with the default skin.
7. 02:56:786 (1) - Slighlty overlapped by the score nulbers with the default skin. Moved both down a bit i guess.
8. 04:22:012 (2) - Almost under the HP bar grr I think thats fine D:

1. I really dislike when objects are put just next to the bottom border of the screen because 1. it's not that comfortable to play 2. it's sometime overlapped by the little accuracy bar. Here's a list of the objects placed way too close to the bottom border of the screen, moving them some grids up should do the trick, it's not like you have to care much about the aesthetics of the map xp: I'd like to keep these because imo putting it near the bottom of the screen doesn't really make it less comfortable to play. i'm just using more of the screen to my advantage really. also the accuracy bar is disabled by default so I don't think its necessary to consider that unlike hp bar etc...
   
   
   1. 00:51:250 (1) -
   2. 00:56:007 (3,5,1) -
   3. 00:59:022 (1) -
   4. 01:01:794 (3,5) -
   5. 01:31:862 (3) -
   6. 01:33:991 (1) -
   7. 01:35:058 (3) -
   8. 01:58:499 (1) -
   9. 04:45:311 (1) -

I don't mind rebubbling this if I am allowed to.

Kagetsu wrote:

what most of people would agree with, though, is that 280~ bpm full screen jumps aren't approachable even for the top part of the playerbase

Monstrata wrote:

CXu wrote:

Have you thought about mapping in a way where each pattern/combo is messy, but how the patterns/combos interact with each other on the playfield is more organized? While the song is indeed, well, "messy", it does have an overarching structure as music mostly do with just how it's structured. Since you're trying to make the patterns ugly to reflect the song, making the patterns the patterns make more organized (?? lolidk) could improve the map aesthetically while still keeping the core idea of ugly vs not ugly. You have some more structural mapping in there already. At least it sounds like a good idea in my head xd

So like idk doing something like this at 01:39:451 (1) -

SPOILER

The slider on its own is still ugly, but it doesn't bleed into the previous sliderpattern, so they can more easily be seen in isolation, if that makes sense.

Just a thought, and it would be quite a bit of work if you were to do this, but I might as well throw the idea out there.

I think its too far in to implement this idea. I don't really like it anyways since imo that doesn't really have any aesthetic consistency anyways, or its really hard to tell given the AR anyways. But thanks. Could be useful for my other maximum the hormone map .

hi-mei wrote:

if you wanna hear community, just take a look on this:



quoting random people that dont know shit in mapping and saying "hey nice map" has 0 effective value

hi-mei wrote:

<3 kagetsu

one of few that deserves respect

if you wanna hear community, just take a look on this:



quoting random people that dont know shit in mapping and saying "hey nice map" has 0 effective value

kagetsu not the last one to pop this

My Angel Azusa wrote:

hi-mei wrote:

<3 kagetsu

one of few that deserves respect

if you wanna hear community, just take a look on this:



quoting random people that dont know shit in mapping and saying "hey nice map" has 0 effective value

kagetsu not the last one to pop this

lol this is really invalid

People rate low for various reasons, not just because this map sucks or it lacks quality.
For some maps players rate very low because of bad song choice/bad anime/no pp/too much pp etc.
In case of ALIEN most players find it extremely difficult and uncomfortable to play so they rate 1 star, however this still doesn't contribute to anything about its quality.

hi-mei wrote:

mapping quality is delusion.

hi-mei wrote:

what do u mean by quality?

lets be real here.

mapping quality is delusion.
it rather comes to the point, whether the map is in adequate state to this game or not.

for now its far from most of fundamentals people were developing over the years.

hi-mei wrote:

i mean, for monstrata its not even the deal about this map, its a challenge for him to rank something that literally nobody can.

hi-mei wrote:

he is asking many people to help him and promises his help in return (bubble for bubble huh?)

Cygnus wrote:

Honestly, I find the map really horrible but not in the sense of calling it unrankable. It just doesn't fall to most people's subjective taste in mapping and I believe we should all just respect each others' opinion. The map is indeed hard and the playability is very much questionable due to its peculiar patterns but as I said, none of these parts are unrankable. The ranking criteria do not state that if a map is hated by most of the community, it shouldn't be ranked (basing this on the preliminary user rating).

The idea is simple: if you do not like a map, point your concern and suggest a solution. If your suggestion has been rejected, reconsider whether your concern points out unrankability or just something that doesn't fit your taste in mapping. If your concern doesn't involve unrankability, then just leave it as it is and respect the mapper's decision. No need to spread hate and gather people to tell the mapper how horrible the map is. The map just did not satisfy your taste, but that doesn't matter because ranking maps should only satisfy the requirements stated in the Ranking Criteria. So in this case, your best solution is to just ignore the map and move on (or you could make a map of your own).

Okay there goes my two cents on the issue. ^^ Here's a little mod btw:

[Stop! Stop Winny Upload!!]
• 00:21:206 (1) - Remove the new combo here and put it on 00:21:419 (2) instead just to be consistent with your new combos since you added new combos on parts where the singer starts singing like on 00:23:131 (1) -, 00:24:842 (1) -, and 00:26:553 (1) -. I want to NC them to the drum instead of just vocal since I think this NC rhythm makes more sense to me anyways.
• 00:48:623 (1,2) - This one is fine as it is but I find the playability on this part much better if the slider goes first before the hit circle. Try it for yourself. This also applies to the rest like on 00:49:515 (1) -, 00:50:384 (1) -, and I think the succeeding 3 more of these. I prefer the current arrangement,
The 1/4 repeats from earlier give an adequate flow since you have time to hover and reset movement while playing them, similar to triplets.
• 01:24:363 (1) - Same new combo suggestion like on 00:21:206 (1) -. Same. Bearing in mind I'm also NC"ing for pattern distinction too,
this slider belongs with the other sliders not with the linear ones in terms of visual representation and relation.
• 01:46:531 (1) - I don't think a new combo is necessary here? Ah, its necessary but on the wrong slider good find. Fixed
• 04:45:311 (1) - Use the brownish new combo instead since it's a heart-shaped slider? XD But its the beautiful section and thats a beautiful heart slider </3

Best of luck getting this ranked. Will stay tuned to this map :3

1. this map should REALLY be od 9.7 at least, I pointed this out in the previous mod I gave alongside the AR (which you changed god bless you), I know there's no notelock potential but there's really no reason for an 8+ star map to have an OD less than 9.5 honestly with how difficult the jumps are lol
2. 00:28:922 (1,2,3,4) - this is probably the most awkward to hit pattern of the mini-jumps in this section and imo it's actually because this is not "ugly" enough,
   there's a distinct sort of patterning with 00:30:624 (1,2,3,4) - and 00:34:046 (1,2,3,4) - that's just lost in the square here
3. 00:38:356 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - bro u butchered this so badly what the heck this fits WAY more as jumps instead of stacks
4. 00:40:812 (6,1) - would personally increase the spacing here, i keep overaiming this as it stands rn and it doesn't feel really that emphasized
5. 00:44:449 (2,3) - idk if this was the same in the previous iteration of the map but on the contrary this feels way TOO emphasized, placing it near 00:43:799 (3)
   would be a lot better imo
6. 00:48:192 (3,4) - was better as one repeat slider since you keep consistency with 00:29:347 (5) - this section
7. 00:49:949 (1,2,3,4) - what happen 2 the spacing here lol
8. 00:53:096 (2,3) - ^
9. 00:57:079 (5,6,1) - the new pattern in general is pretty cool but i'm not a huge fan of having an obtuse angle here, just personal preference tho xd
10. 01:02:008 (5,6,7,8) - idk if you meant to change the spacing on these last two jumps but if you did then k hand: since it really doesn't affect anything
11. 01:38:058 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5) - alright so this is basically the only problem i have with the entire map (plus the other section like this), while this is definitely an intense section of the song i feel representing this with 1/4 kicksliders especially at this high of a bpm and this awkward of an angle is ridiculous; it's a lot better to play with ar 10 now but it still just feels so out of place with the rest of the song, even just increasing the spacing of how far apart these are would make this so much easier to play imo since they feel so clustered together for no particular reason (obviously this goes for 02:26:362 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4) - these sections too but that's a lot more iffy of a solution)
12. 01:47:749 - you can be edgy here and add a note for the guitar xd
13. 02:25:494 (1,2,3,4,5) - make this a star jump tbh, could be a lot more intense here than just a pentagon
14. 02:26:362 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4) - fuck this part
15. 02:43:685 (1,2) - better as a vertical jump than a sideways jump imo

Gokateigo wrote:

my opinion

This map sucks tbh, you shitmapped a huge part because you think metal is disgusting, Mazzerin maps death metal and thinks song representation is more important than aesthetics. His maps are NOT ugly af, they are a bit ugly sometimes (with really ugly sounds, not everything) but his style fits very well to metal, you should map something similar to his style in the "ugly" part and map ugly sliders when they are in the middle of the calm part because you can't change your style for 2 objects. If you map something like this I'll bee happy if it's ranked, it's just a random shit map atm for me

gl I guess

mvb wrote:

No. The song is ugly. Time signatures and BPM changes all over the place, it doesn't follow any pattern at all. He mapped it ugly because MTH made an ugly song. It's not any classic death metal songs with double-pedals going on for 2 minutes and a half. You're comparing apples and carrots.

EDIT: Can y'all stop caring about difficulty and care about mapping please thanks

UnstoppableVP wrote:

Just because Vaxei can mash his way through this map with dt doesn't necessarily mean it's playable

fieryrage wrote:

this just in Monstrata Goes Balls Deep and this thread is a shitshow

i'm gonna remod from a player perspective this time cuz i really don't care about the aesthetics of this map like everyone else, you don't have to give kds since the map really hasn't changed but idc xd

1. this map should REALLY be od 9.7 at least, I pointed this out in the previous mod I gave alongside the AR (which you changed god bless you), I know there's no notelock potential but there's really no reason for an 8+ star map to have an OD less than 9.5 honestly with how difficult the jumps are lol OD 9.4 is fine. You didn't really give any reason other than "its too low". But I already stated that OD 9.4 is high enough to avoid any potential notelocking.
2. 00:28:922 (1,2,3,4) - this is probably the most awkward to hit pattern of the mini-jumps in this section and imo it's actually because this is not "ugly" enough, Already fixed, i guess update lol
   there's a distinct sort of patterning with 00:30:624 (1,2,3,4) - and 00:34:046 (1,2,3,4) - that's just lost in the square here
3. 00:38:356 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - bro u butchered this so badly what the heck this fits WAY more as jumps instead of stacks I like this better,
   Discussed it with Kite who gave me the idea. Keeping it.
4. 00:40:812 (6,1) - would personally increase the spacing here, i keep overaiming this as it stands rn and it doesn't feel really that emphasized Increased it slightly.
5. 00:44:449 (2,3) - idk if this was the same in the previous iteration of the map but on the contrary this feels way TOO emphasized, placing it near 00:43:799 (3) Lowered it a bit.
   would be a lot better imo
6. 00:48:192 (3,4) - was better as one repeat slider since you keep consistency with 00:29:347 (5) - this section No, it needs to be two repeats to keep the intensityand consistency with 01:41:058 (1,2) -.
7. 00:49:949 (1,2,3,4) - what happen 2 the spacing here lol Nothing, that's intentional
8. 00:53:096 (2,3) - ^ Same, intentional.
9. 00:57:079 (5,6,1) - the new pattern in general is pretty cool but i'm not a huge fan of having an obtuse angle here, just personal preference tho xd Yea I want to keep cuz I like it.
10. 01:02:008 (5,6,7,8) - idk if you meant to change the spacing on these last two jumps but if you did then k hand: since it really doesn't affect anything I'll keep xp
11. 01:38:058 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5) - alright so this is basically the only problem i have with the entire map (plus the other section like this), while this is definitely an intense section of the song i feel representing this with 1/4 kicksliders especially at this high of a bpm and this awkward of an angle is ridiculous; it's a lot better to play with ar 10 now but it still just feels so out of place with the rest of the song, even just increasing the spacing of how far apart these are would make this so much easier to play imo since they feel so clustered together for no particular reason (obviously this goes for 02:26:362 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4) - these sections too but that's a lot more iffy of a solution) Definitely keeping the kicksliders, thats a given. I shifted the angles slightly and made the spacing more consistent from head to head.
12. 01:47:749 - you can be edgy here and add a note for the guitar xd No, theres not enough time for it as I've said xP.
13. 02:25:494 (1,2,3,4,5) - make this a star jump tbh, could be a lot more intense here than just a pentagon Fine, since many ppl want that.
14. 02:26:362 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4) - fuck this part No, keeping xP
15. 02:43:685 (1,2) - better as a vertical jump than a sideways jump imo

No, I prefer the sideways jump, it's a nice variation.

slow section i'm not gonna bother modding

it's not unplayable, idk why people say it is, just a few jumps flow awkwardly but I'm assuming that's the point of the map so it's not like it's surprising
the only main issue I have with the map is how awkward the 1/4 slider spam is to play which can be easily remedied with more spacing or changing the pattern
but yea those are my thoughts xd

Irreversible wrote:

@Kagetsu:
If you want to keep up your veto, then please proceed with properly argumenting why exactly this map is not playable -

Irreversible wrote:

simply stating something is not playable is not a reason why you can veto this map. The map has structure, is mapped to the song and makes sense, so simply saying it's not playable is definitely not enough.

Irreversible wrote:

the argument "it's unplayable" is REALLY weak.

Kagetsu wrote:

Irreversible wrote:

@Kagetsu:
If you want to keep up your veto, then please proceed with properly argumenting why exactly this map is not playable -

i've already pointed my reasons about why i think the playability of this map is flawed, stuff like seeing a lot of players playing the map, the ar being too low, unpredictable transitions that could be improved, exaggerated spacing considering how high the bpm is, etc.

Kagetsu wrote:

Irreversible wrote:

simply stating something is not playable is not a reason why you can veto this map. The map has structure, is mapped to the song and makes sense, so simply saying it's not playable is definitely not enough.

as far i know, i can veto any map, under objective or subjective issues. saying that its playability isn't the best might be subjective, but i've already stated my reasons. so i don't see why the veto would be invalid.

Kagetsu wrote:

Irreversible wrote:

the argument "it's unplayable" is REALLY weak.

i don't know what would make my argument or any other modder argument stronger. under that kind of reasoning i could say that "increasing spacing in order to emphasize sounds in the music" is a weak argument because you can't prove it actually emphasizes something. playability and "mapping theory" in general, is something agreed upon, and as such, i have the right to say this map playability is bad under the reasons stated before.
others nominators are free to overwrite my opinion by placing a bubble. isn't it how this system works?

Yes, you can veto, but your justification is extremely weak, if even existent. Read our discord log again, see how many times i asked you to provide any sort of "evidence" for why you think the map is unplayable. You keep dodging the question, or only using your own experience, never quoting anyone, or misquoting people. "I think the top score was made by someone with a touch pad" "I think Kynan said AR 10 was bad" (no he said AR 9.7). You can do better than this, surely

-Nishiki- wrote:

since it looks like you're serious about this i'll put a few of my thoughts in.
no need for kudosu if this is bad mod.

Stop! Stop Winny Upload!!

you might wanna rethink the samplesounds.
01:06:090 (1,1,1) - i think a few jumps here would work better than a spinner. Spinner works better. I want to use a spinner because people will still play spinners as a fast gameplay element. When you see a spinner, you move really fast, you don't sit idly by so the intensity is kept. I don't want to use streams because the timing is really messed up, and the section doesn't call for intense rhythm because they are preceded by slow sliders.
01:59:903 (2,3) - something like pictured below matches the gimmick of sv change in the map as well as unpredictability better than how it is now. (slider velocity for second slider is 1.4x) Well, first, there is no gimmick of SV change... and secondly this is a quiet section, I think its better to use predictable patterns. It's also not a really ugly section which is why you see some more visual patterning and aesthetics.

02:02:231 (1) - i think this should be a lengthened slider similar to 01:59:903 (2,2,2) before it. No, its a pause xP.
02:18:765 (1,2) - a more dramatic sv change to contrast to the short spacing of 02:18:402 (3,4,5) before it and 02:19:370 (3,4,5) after it would work better aesthetically in my opinion. I think it works just fine here. The idea is to make the downbeat a jump so players who try to alternate the short spaced stacks will be forced to do a really big jump here and that creates emphasis onto the sliderhead itself.
02:43:900 (1,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2) - since this section of the song is much more comprehensible than the parts before it,circular flow seems fairly beneficial to the music's tone.i'd go back and forth between both clockwise and counter clockwise circular flow. The flow used here already does that. It's perfectly fine imo, but you really have to consider slider leniency when looking at those sliders xP.
03:03:317 (3) - this should be extended to a white tick. No, cuz of vocals.
03:07:390 (1) - imo this should be a circle to match 03:05:329 (1) before it. They are both sliders tho xP. Also slider fits better.
03:11:415 (1) - it'd be a bit more fitting for this to be a heart or at least some slider art.i'd also recommend having the slider end at 03:14:868 rather than 03:13:946 . This is currently a slider art too, its a loop slider thats perfectly symmetrical.
04:45:311 (1) - ^ maybe not a heart because that'd kinda be redundant since this exists. It's more fitting to end with a heart though <3

otherwise pretty good map.matches the song well and play's fine if you're actually decent unlike me.don't understand the controversy.

1. 00:42:622 (1) - I would ctrl+G this slider. I would be more illustrative of the sudden fierceness upsurge in the vocals. And to be honest, it is more intuitive to play as it would be consistent with how the previous pattern is structured.
2. 01:36:344 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4) - I had some trouble understanding this pattern while testplaying the map. It sounded extremely off. I tried listening to the music more carefully and it is just as if the singer switched to 1/6 yet you used 1/4 triples. However it is not 1/6 but to me it sounds like there is a 3/8 distance between those notes (whhich is pretty representative of how chaotic this section is). Try changing your timeline to the screenshot below, it should fit the music better:
   
   SPOILER

   
3. 04:25:863 (2) - Do you really need this circle since you never map the 1/4 when the singer starts saying "stop stop"? Seems weird to me.

Kurai wrote:

Few things I noticed while testplaying the map:

1. 00:42:622 (1) - I would ctrl+G this slider. I would be more illustrative of the sudden fierceness upsurge in the vocals. And to be honest, it is more intuitive to play as it would be consistent with how the previous pattern is structured. DId it differently. I agree it could flow a bit better.
2. 01:36:344 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4) - I had some trouble understanding this pattern while testplaying the map. It sounded extremely off. I tried listening to the music more carefully and it is just as if the singer switched to 1/6 yet you used 1/4 triples. However it is not 1/6 but to me it sounds like there is a 3/8 distance between those notes (whhich is pretty representative of how chaotic this section is). Try changing your timeline to the screenshot below, it should fit the music better:
   
   SPOILER

   
   THe current rhythm is entirely based off 01:34:630 (1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5) - but denser to account for the vocal on blue tick. For example, if you just removed the circle on 01:36:505 (2) - etc.... it would be the same rhythm as earlier. I just upped the density since the song is denser. I suppose the only issue I had was 01:36:933 (6) - being a bit off for vocals, but I think players can still read this rhythm and understand it's effect.
3. 04:25:863 (2) - Do you really need this circle since you never map the 1/4 when the singer starts saying "stop stop"? Seems weird to me. There are drums being introduced in the bg, and the rhythm does become a bit more dense with those triplets and streams that I introduce.

MaridiuS wrote:

thing i noticed other than slider style:
firstly I think you could use socially acceptable sliders here 02:36:797 - to 02:43:900 - Since it has no vocals on sliders, and make em disgusting when there's the hey added. No, i disagree, I think this part still deserves ugly sliders. (made one of them uglier)Now rhythm for the sections is ughhh:
02:44:346 (2,3) - this is fine but 02:44:792 (2,3) - this make s me want to kill myself, compared to the previous one, there no kick on the red tick, and not hitsoundend, nor anything that sounds clickable to me, therefore I believe it should be a slider. 02:45:684 (2,3) - same for this 02:48:346 (2,3) - 02:49:231 (2,3) - tbh its an overmap. This rhythm is a lot more consistent and makes more sense. Using slider spam here makes the map way too simple imo.

Kurai wrote:

good luck big boy

Mini Gaunt wrote:

Kurai wrote:

good luck big boy

E n d wrote:

The only problem I have with A L I E N is the fact that half of the map is a 3* map lol...

I get that the song warrants it, but it doesn't seem right to have one half be 8 stars and the other be 3 I dunno

1. 00:25:056 (2,3,4) - Comparing with 00:21:847 (4,5) - 00:23:558 (3,4) - 00:26:981 (3,4) - , this was the only one with an overlap. What musical aspect made this decision?
2. 01:28:005 (1,2,3,4,5) - Similar question as above. While the overlaps being polished themselves, I couldn't found what lead to this overlap decision. Indeed throwing objects without overlaps in a row might be less interesting, but I consider this kind of decision to be a major composition difference while the music being similar.
3. 00:27:195 (4,1) -
4. 00:28:496 (3,4) -
5. 00:30:624 (1,4) -
6. 00:33:189 (1,2,3,4) -
7. 00:36:647 (1,3) -
8. 00:41:128 (3,5) -
9. 00:52:216 (2,1) -
10. 00:54:304 (1,4) -
11. 00:56:650 (2,4) - Above were the overlaps that I couldn't get the context of these decisions. As the way I've explained at the first overlap issue, the usage of the overlaps were differing by time to time. Some were having a perfect overlap, some are partially overlapped, and some aren't overlapped at all at similar parts of the song.

1. 00:17:766 - vs. 00:19:486 - A constant drum beat starts from 00:19:486 while the drum doesn't exist at 00:17:766. While the major musical progression is the similar, what do you think about giving some difference in expression based on the different instrument composition? The only difference expressed as a map was hitsounds here, but it quite feels weak imo. You can try differentiating the slider shapes, or flow choice etc to reflect the section without a drum in the song.
2. 00:25:697 (5) - I'm not really sure what made you to decide this slider stand out from others. The similar part of the song previously was expressed as 00:22:275 (6) - 00:23:986 (5) - which was relatively an ordinary shape. If the intention was to make this part being ugly progressively, I couldn't really found a musical reason for that progressive difference. The same idea applies to 01:28:862 (5). It was a good thing that you've managed to express your internal structure consistently, but I'm questionable about the structure decision at the first place.
3. 00:54:726 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - Other similar parts of these were expressed as zigzag jumps such as 00:51:250 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - 00:58:150 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - 01:01:580 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8). What musical difference has lead to such a different mapping concept?
4. 02:36:797 - vs. 02:44:123 - Just a personal thought but since the spacing concept of both section were similar, it made me feel the intensity of these two sections were the similar which gave a less emphasis on the finish hitsounds of the second section. Perfectly fine though if you've interpreted the intensity of both section the similar.

Sonnyc wrote:

I'm totally fine with the ugly shaped sliders. While not really polished enough, individual shapes are having a similar "concept" behind which reflects this genre of the song nice enough. Also I don't think the unbalanced difficulty of the map as something problematic since the song itself is unbalanced. Such mapping decision rather reflected the song in a nice way.

One point I'd like to question about is the overlaps. Overall, I can see some overlap concepts being used yet in an inconsistent manner imo. The appearance timing, or the overlap scale quite differed by time to time which felt questionable to form a technical concept as a map. Maybe it could get regarded as an "ugly" concept, but they varied way too much in my opinion. Few examples:

1. 00:25:056 (2,3,4) - Comparing with 00:21:847 (4,5) - 00:23:558 (3,4) - 00:26:981 (3,4) - , this was the only one with an overlap. What musical aspect made this decision? This flows perfectly fine. I'm just using regular pattern variation. 5 is different because of the vocals. Other than that,
   this is literally how I'd map normally because whats important is the flow and spacing.
2. 01:28:005 (1,2,3,4,5) - Similar question as above. While the overlaps being polished themselves, I couldn't found what lead to this overlap decision. Indeed throwing objects without overlaps in a row might be less interesting, but I consider this kind of decision to be a major composition difference while the music being similar. I can't give you a reason like "because there is something new in the mp3 that requires something different" nothing in the mp3 can suggest making a pattern overlap over not overlapping because they aren't compatible. You can't tell me X absolutely needs to be mapped as an overlap.
   I'm mapping it this way just becauser I want to, I have the freedom to do so no? It's just a variety of patterns. It's like you asking me why I decided to blanket 04:11:819 (2,3) - instead of using a linear pattern. I cannot give you any explanation other than "because I want to..." You don't offer me much to discuss...
3. 00:27:195 (4,1) - ^
4. 00:28:496 (3,4) -
5. 00:30:624 (1,4) -
6. 00:33:189 (1,2,3,4) -
7. 00:36:647 (1,3) -
8. 00:41:128 (3,5) -
9. 00:52:216 (2,1) -
10. 00:54:304 (1,4) -
11. 00:56:650 (2,4) - Above were the overlaps that I couldn't get the context of these decisions. As the way I've explained at the first overlap issue, the usage of the overlaps were differing by time to time. Some were having a perfect overlap, some are partially overlapped, and some aren't overlapped at all at similar parts of the song. The overlapping is simply an aesthetic choice of the map itself. I didn't use the overlap in order to convey that something was different musically, and I don't believe overlapping sliders creates this effect in any way.
    
    Anyways I'm just using a different pattern... I can't give you a reason for why I want to blanket a circle, It's just what I do. The same way, I can't tell you that X absolutely needs to be overlapped for some musical purposes because that's not the intention. The overlap is just there for variety of pattern. I use overlaps more often because they aren't aesthetically pleasing compared to regular hex grid patterns, so they fit my concept.

Also I'd like to mention some structure issues additionally.

1. 00:17:766 - vs. 00:19:486 - A constant drum beat starts from 00:19:486 while the drum doesn't exist at 00:17:766. While the major musical progression is the similar, what do you think about giving some difference in expression based on the different instrument composition? The only difference expressed as a map was hitsounds here, but it quite feels weak imo. You can try differentiating the slider shapes, or flow choice etc to reflect the section without a drum in the song. I don't think its necessary to do this at all. Just play it, it's fine and expresses the guitar. Just look at the snapping, even though there are indeed drums, the snapping is obviously to follow the guitar. I really hope this isn't your reason for veto'ing
2. 00:25:697 (5) - I'm not really sure what made you to decide this slider stand out from others. The similar part of the song previously was expressed as 00:22:275 (6) - 00:23:986 (5) - which was relatively an ordinary shape. If the intention was to make this part being ugly progressively, I couldn't really found a musical reason for that progressive difference. The same idea applies to 01:28:862 (5). It was a good thing that you've managed to express your internal structure consistently, but I'm questionable about the structure decision at the first place. The vocal is a lot harsher than the other ones,
   if you listen...
3. 00:54:726 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - Other similar parts of these were expressed as zigzag jumps such as 00:51:250 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - 00:58:150 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - 01:01:580 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8). What musical difference has lead to such a different mapping concept?
4. 02:36:797 - vs. 02:44:123 - Just a personal thought but since the spacing concept of both section were similar, it made me feel the intensity of these two sections were the similar which gave a less emphasis on the finish hitsounds of the second section. Perfectly fine though if you've interpreted the intensity of both section the similar. Pattern variety. You cannot tell me that this sound must be expressed through zigzag movements. There is no way to absolutely interpret that. And why can't i introduce a variety of movements and patterns for players?

Maybe I might have pointed out things that were already mentioned. Sorry then because the thread has gone way too huge to track every single post. What you pointed out has already been discussed very thoroughly, and it's a real pain for me to have to explain it for the 2039842034th time .

In common, I'm spotting major structure differences while the music being similar which made me feel this map lacking in quality. Vetoing over that for now since there might be concepts that I've overlooked.

Smokeman wrote:

some small things i noticed

00:23:986 (5) - You could make this a bit more jaged like 00:25:697 (5) - to be noticably different from the rest since its on that strong vocal ok
00:53:096 (2) - make this have a small qurick like 00:53:975 (2) - :> i think this one's fine already
01:35:165 (4) - Imo the quirck isnt very hitting since its under another slider body. You could make it a bit more noticeable sure why not lol https://puu.sh/wRU4v/5ec5f2b2e5.png
01:46:857 (1) - This could look a bit edgier aswell like these 01:42:526 (2) - 01:43:163 (2) - or like https://puu.sh/wRU4v/5ec5f2b2e5.png lol ok
01:48:020 (2) - put a barely noticeable quirck to slightly differentiate these two cause you almost never directly copy paste shapes like this.e.g. sure https://puu.sh/wRUcg/98a55494c8.png
02:02:231 (1) - did you really intend to have this note on 70%? I think the 70% was intended for these 02:02:564 (2,3,4,5) - which is fitting but you also put 70% on the timing point which makes that one note stand out all of a sudden :s yea fixed
02:12:585 (2) - Distort it's shape a bit to fit the objects surrounding it ? its the only "usual" slider shape in 02:10:385 - 02:25:922 - . Somethign liek this 02:24:820 (2) - shoudl do the trick : ) ok
02:33:171 (1) - Make this a bezier slider instead which comes close to be a circle but isnt. Like this you could emphasise the unsetteling vocals through a slightly off curve which would be unsetteling to look at aswell c: Eh, I think the slow SV does the trick. I kinda want these to look nicer again to juxtapose with the section before and after.
02:57:257 (1) - i think you messed up the colours a bit. This should probably be orange https://puu.sh/wRTDO/d6669c97af.png . (You would need to go over the whole second half and check the combocolouring :s) Yea i messed something up while deleting every object on the map that had already been modded. fixed this lol.
02:56:104 (1,2,1,1,1) - You also put the last jumps into "happy" colours aswell https://puu.sh/wRTGa/894efb48b2.png . Was this intended? cause i would say they are still in the crazy part of the song and should be in the darker/edgier colours. Making them ugly colors cuz i think it makes more sense to have the happy colors after. but fixed the colors still

this is a meme-free zone now

E n d wrote:

The only problem I have with A L I E N is the fact that half of the map is a 3* map lol...

I get that the song warrants it, but it doesn't seem right to have one half be 8 stars and the other be 3 I dunno

Athrun wrote:

E n d wrote:

The only problem I have with A L I E N is the fact that half of the map is a 3* map lol...

I get that the song warrants it, but it doesn't seem right to have one half be 8 stars and the other be 3 I dunno

Teach me how to make a slow interlude 8*

:thinking:

1. 02:44:123 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - The anti-clockwise flow changed to a clockwise flow at 02:45:349 (3,1), the forth (1). and at 02:47:677 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3), such flow change happens at 02:48:456 (3,1) which is the third (1). Why? What lead to this kind of a difference? Was there a musical difference to support this variation? or any mapping reason that lead to this variation?
2. 03:15:390 (1,2) - 03:19:409 (1,2) - 03:23:442 (1,2) - etc- Mappings of the "stop stop" part. I can understand the decision to avoid things being way too repetitive if these are the only 1/2 sliders happening in a row. But as you can see at the part without "stop stop" vocals, 03:17:398 (1,2) - 03:21:425 (1,2) - 03:25:478 (1,2) - you've also expressed these parts of the song as two 1/2 sliders. Since you've decided a variation each vocal part, I can not question why some are parallels while some are 120 degree rotation blankets. Yet, I'm questioning the decision of a variation itself. Since every two 1/2 sliders differ all the time, they didn't really turned out as a recognizable pattern even the spacing concepts were commonly applied. There's no difference between "stop stop" 1/2 sliders vs. non-"stop stop" 1/2 sliders. There's no similarity between each "stop stop" 1/2 sliders or between each non-"stop stop" 1/2 sliders. Indeed they are similar in song, but also not exactly the same.

Sonnyc wrote:

00:54:726 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - I couldn't really agree your explanation about the pattern variety here. This pattern was a mixture of a squares and a similar pattern usage also appears at 02:55:471 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) where the music is slightly different. Applying a similar idea at different parts of the music felt to be lacking in structure. That was why I questioned this pattern not being a zigzag. If you wanted this as a variation, then what was the reason of it? Those are entirely different in terms of context. You sould be comparing that timestamp to 00:51:250 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - . Listen to how similar it is to 00:54:726 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - . I used zigzag for the first one, then rotational for the second one. That's the variety. Now listen to 00:55:579 - and listen to 00:59:022 - . They are the same stanza repeated twice. So you have patterning 1, 1, 2, 2. But here you're trying to compare 1 with 3, a jump sequence that doesn't even have the same rhythmic context. It's like trying to say "why is 02:57:257 (1) - not the same as 04:39:787 (1) - ?" Well, obviously they aren't the same because they aren't even part of the same rhythm structure. The first time stamp isn't related to the second in terms of stanzas, it just shares a similar flow but the context is completely different.

I understand pattern varieties to create more interesting stuff, but I also believe that those varieties should have a reasoning behind its existence at the first place. Rather it being from the song, or from the map itself. Pattern variety doesn't just happen without any reason. Mapping logics, you know. For example, you've consistently expressed the shoutings of the song as zigzag slider flows at 01:38:058 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - 01:39:772 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - 02:26:362 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - 02:28:028 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - 02:29:742 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - 02:31:456 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - . While the visual aspects all differed, they had a consistent concept at similar parts of the song which created a structure. Such similar concept wasn't applied at different parts of the song. If one of those suddenly had a rotation concept applied while having no reason to back up, calling it a variety would be less logical.

There is a lot of reasoning going in. The first two stanzas, I used variety of flow movement, linear to rotational. It makes sense because that stanza is only repeated once. If you consider them as one pairing, then you can see that. The second stanza beginning at 00:55:579 - follows a different method of variety. Instead of switching flows, i'm using spacing increase, movement, and orientation. 00:58:150 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - Is down, ending up, zigzagging to the left of the screen. 01:01:580 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - is larger spacing, and zigzagging to the right.

Comparing 00:51:250 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - to 00:58:150 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - isn't fair because they aren't the same stanza. They happen to be similar in flow (though the first is an upward zigzag movement that shifts angles noticeably too) but you really shouldn't consider them as having to be consistent. Listen to the measure befor,e especially with the vocals, it should already show that they are not similar.

Some fragmentary examples again:

1. 02:44:123 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - The anti-clockwise flow changed to a clockwise flow at 02:45:349 (3,1), the forth (1). and at 02:47:677 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3), such flow change happens at 02:48:456 (3,1) which is the third (1). Why? What lead to this kind of a difference? Was there a musical difference to support this variation? or any mapping reason that lead to this variation? No, there was not. And there shouldn't need to be in order to justify every change in flow. Are you going to say stuff like : 03:26:728 (4,5,1,2,3,4,5) - require some musical difference to support flow changes too? Because this is what I've literally done for all my ranked maps so far. Pattern variety, and flow shifts are not always mapped to the song, but are simply self-contained. Managing flow to that extent is completely unreasonable, because it absolutely restricts mapping way too much. My style is already very restrictive in terms of object placement, it doesn't need to be clouded by some necessity to map every flow shift to something significant in the song. I'm disagreeing with your point because I do it all the time, and I don't believe flow shifts necessarily have to map to something in the song. I don't believe this point improves the map, or any of my maps because I wouldn't have applied it on normal songs either. You are really analyzing too far in. You can say the same about how some of the angles I use on the map don't correspond to the song either. Like how some I use a sharp angle for some patterns, and a wider angle on another. I can't give you a reason because there doesn't need to be a reason for literally every minute change.
2. 03:15:390 (1,2) - 03:19:409 (1,2) - 03:23:442 (1,2) - etc- Mappings of the "stop stop" part. I can understand the decision to avoid things being way too repetitive if these are the only 1/2 sliders happening in a row. But as you can see at the part without "stop stop" vocals, 03:17:398 (1,2) - 03:21:425 (1,2) - 03:25:478 (1,2) - you've also expressed these parts of the song as two 1/2 sliders. Since you've decided a variation each vocal part, I can not question why some are parallels while some are 120 degree rotation blankets. Yet, I'm questioning the decision of a variation itself. Since every two 1/2 sliders differ all the time, they didn't really turned out as a recognizable pattern even the spacing concepts were commonly applied. There's no difference between "stop stop" 1/2 sliders vs. non-"stop stop" 1/2 sliders. There's no similarity between each "stop stop" 1/2 sliders or between each non-"stop stop" 1/2 sliders. Indeed they are similar in song, but also not exactly the same. But that's just rhythm? I don't have to make a distinction because they are just the same rhythms... Just because its a vocal doesn't mean I absolutely need to map it differently to the non vocal part, especially considering they are still the same rhythm that only emphasize the white tick, and thus need a 1/2 slider rhythm. Are you saying all vocal sections should use linear sliders and non-vocals should use curved? Because if so that's just completely ridiculous and hinders the map's design unnecessarily. Not to mention thats just digging way too deep into trying to find some inconsistencies in expression.

While the stop stop winny upload part was at least in a technically organized manner by spacing or visual concepts, the overall structure issue I'm feeling is the same as the metal part. The map itself is not really that bad. It introduces interesting mapping concepts for this kind of a song. Just that I don't think it's the top quality material.

Reflecting the song as a map is what I regard as "structures" which I consider highly important. It seems you've interpreted this song to be unique all the time, but it's not like the song being different all the time every new stanza. Some parts majorly differ, while some parts are showing a similar musical flow.

Major composition differences were being made as section differs, but composition similarities in similar parts of the song were rather weak. Without a supporting logic behind, different patterns are just being different each instead of forming a variation. I'd like you to think more than "why not?" when deciding variations for your future mappings.

I'm keeping my veto. Other BNs might feel this map valuable enough so maybe you can ask them.

Monstrata wrote:

I think the current sliders are fine. The curve on the T looks nice imo which is why I want to keep. And the O, i think making it oval makes it look too much like a U that was overcurved. Circular makes the most sense imo when thinking of an O.

current stop

possible stop

ezek wrote:

the "O" is not an "O" 👀

MrMenda wrote:

I realized map has no kiais, there's nothing wrong with it but I think you could add some where the most intense screaming starts at 01:34:630 - 01:41:058 - and 02:26:362 - 02:33:170 -

you could use those flashes and make a extended one here: 02:36:797 - 02:50:353 -

Are you going to say stuff like : 03:26:728 (4,5,1,2,3,4,5) - require some musical difference to support flow changes too?

Sonnyc wrote:

Are you going to say stuff like : 03:26:728 (4,5,1,2,3,4,5) - require some musical difference to support flow changes too?

My answer is a yes, or at least you should be able to explain that difference based on the mapping logics you've applied.

Reviewing from your replies, I'm pretty sure that you've got the point what I'm trying to say regarding the structures. Just that it seems you can't really understand "why" they are issues. Let me elaborate in that respect.

Beatmap is a secondary creation that reflects a particular song via placements, movements, visual concepts, rhythmic choices and several other mapping aspects. And reflecting a song as a map does not mean just simply giving an overall feeling as song goes by. It's about reflecting the musical aspects inside the song because as I've said, beatmap is a secondary creation based on the song. A map does not exist its own without a music. Reflecting the song may be done in a different extent as what music aspect people prioritize, yet the essence remains the same. Objects that are combined with the mapping aspects I've mentioned before form a logic when corresponding with the song. That logic and correspondence show how the map is reflecting the song.

I've considered the continuous variation of patterns to be less corresponding to this particular song which made me feel the map lacking in structures. That's why I've asked for extra explanations to figure out if there were any backing logics that I've failed to detect. Some explanations were satisfactory, but for most points I've made, the common answer I've got is that you can't explain because there is no way to. Maybe it is hard to tell the reason for initial mapping concepts as it involve one's mapping style. But once a logic presents, it is possible to explain stuffs that are under those logics. Reasons for the flows, aesthetics, placements etc based on the mapping logic you wanted to express the structure of music-beatmap correlation.

You already know yourself that this kind of stuff presents in your previous maps. Even the ones I've nominated, you say. Those issue presented yet deserved my nomination because each map had a much bigger value that compensates the weak structure in my opinion. If I decided to decline a nomination for those maps despite the greater values I've felt, there would be literally 0 beatmaps to nominate in this game for me.

If you think I'm just nitpicking over extremely minor issues that you didn't even considered as an issue, then I've got to say congratulations. It is a mapping perspective that you never seriously considered while mapping until now as a mapper, yet something extremely essential in the very grounds of mapping which you can consider to improve further as a mapper.

You are really an expert in designing objects in technical ways. I can say your skills are top class as far as I've saw from this game. But the ones I'm mentioning here are the weakness of your mappings. It's not only at this map 'alien' as you've well explained yourself. You may disagree personally with my decision on being too harsh, but please understand that my opinion did not pop out of 0 basis.

I hope I've got nothing more to add for now.

Kurai wrote:

Alo l'espace

I am fine with rebubbling the map as it is. The map is more than feasible for skilled players and there are enough people backing it, there is no reason to keep this thread going round in circles any longer, I'm getting tired of this standoff, you're not going to reach a consensus anyway. Enjoy the bubble!

I should not have to say this, but keep the discussion civilised. Any inappropriate comment will be removed and sanctions will be issued.

Xexxar wrote:

Do you people not even read the BNG rules when you get added? Did you just assume you can nominate anything? You're 60k dude and a brand new BN, why do you think you can judge this?

I think you should be kicked from the BNG for your actions here.

Xexxar wrote:

Kurai wrote:

-snip for convenience and readability-

Xexxar wrote:

Do you people not even read the BNG rules when you get added? Did you just assume you can nominate anything? You're 60k dude and a brand new BN, why do you think you can judge this?

I think you should be kicked from the BNG for your actions here.

I wonder how many maps it will take before QAT actually enforces any rules on BNG members.