CAN WE HIT
1000 THREAD POSTS
(first and last shitpost I promise)
1000 THREAD POSTS
(first and last shitpost I promise)
show more
Again, you have made no effort to discuss or list places that I need to fix, and your argument leaves no room for discussion because the counter to your "its not playable" argument is literally "but its playable".
I'll stress this again. If I were to go up to one of your 5 star maps and veto it because i thought "the map was unplayable" how would you react? By telling me it's playable. It's the same idea here. I'm telling you it's playable, and you're telling me "playability is subjective, none of the reasons i gave you (that there was an HR pass, that there are A scores, that there are multiple 90% acc scores, that multiple top 100 players have commented and said the map was playable, that many mappers and bn's even if they dislike the concept, still acknowledge that its playable etc...) are valid because they are all subjective."
I'm sorry, what?
:thinking:
Well, I'll just ask Kurai for help then because I really think there is no basis for this veto at all. You are free to reconsider your points if you want to discuss them further.
If you still think your "T" shape is better I can see your reason, but saying the "O" shape looks like an "U" is pretty much lazy responding to my suggestion since I didn't give you an alternative example, but rather slider design suggestion. Take it if you want ,after all it's your map :3
Maybe we could stop this pointless drama and move on, rank this already and forget?
Are you guys gonna continue to deny concepts which breaks "mapping purely for pp meta"?
As I said, right now where over 90% maps are just copy paste without actual quality - If map is right in term of ranking criteria and follow guidelines, in this case, Monstrata map is right in both, it is rankable.
At least Monstrata have idea for some creativity which goes out of this pointless mapping meta.
I would say - with all this complains, maybe you should start paying money to Monstrata for all this fixes which goes out of his initial concept.
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. (Won't be mentioning those individually since I don't think this is the appropriate spot for that.) 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.
In any case you have provided no time stamps, no examples of how to remedy the issue you proposed, nor have you replied to my comments so I cannot further this discussion. I'm not here to discuss mapping philosophies with you, this is not the thread for it. If you'd like to discuss my map, and reply to the things i mentioned above (in reference to your initial mod) then we can maybe go somewhere.
I have no intention of trying this "mapping aspect" you mentioned anyways because I think respecting consistency, just like respecting emphasis completely will just result in banal maps that no one will remember or play after 3 days. You are constructing maps for a game, not for some educational purpose or institutional purpose. Keep things fun and make unique changes to the map. If you respect emphasis on every single jump sequence you make, they will not be interesting in the slightest and will just feel like any other pp farm map. If that is your objective, then that's fine, but please don't impose this onto maps that are clearly not trying to be your typical pp farm anime style maps xP.
This discussion will go no where until you reply to what I've actually mentioned in my reply. Again, I'll stress that it's the map we are discussing, not your mapping philosophy and why you think I should change mine. My philosophy clearly has found more success.
Hello Xexxar! Just thought I'd check in and toss a non circlejerk opinion into the mix.
I believe it's completely justified that the map is bubbled seeing the reasoning that the veto on it was poorly done with not much reasoning beyond "eh i dont like it/its not playable". Monstrata has made an attempt (and quite well done!) to explain virtually every note within the beatmap at this point. Rank does not effect how good a mapper you are and aren't (You're 3k, We get it. It doesn't exactly make your opinion any more valid than anyone else's.). Kurai has simply reinstated a bubble which imo shouldn't have been popped in the first place. If you think the map sucks, that's great! We're all entitled to our own opinions, heck, it's why the modding system exists., If you have sat and modded the map and had it responded to and it ended in a way you didn't like; that's really sad for you but unfortunately it is ultimately the mappers decisions how they make their map.
If you can find anything wrong with this map beyond "DAE NOT LIKE ALIEN?" point it out here. I'm sure the BNG would take the steps necessary to make Monstrata change anything that is fundamentally flawed, however, at this point in time; from the perspective of many, it seems the map is ready for a bubble and possibly the qualified section.
Please be civil in this thread (However difficult it may be for you :s), calling out Kurai because he's made a decision you do not like and feel breaks the rules is NOT the type of stuff that is honestly suitable in a thread being this heavily monitored. Passive aggressiveness against people is bad.
--
That bit of the comment done! Gratz on the bubble. I look forward to seeing the development of this map (good song :thumbsup:), your recent changes have made the map better in my opinion. Best of luck moving forward Monstrata!
No Xexxar, you have to understand those rules only apply when disqualifying The Empress or preventing Gone with the Blast from qualifying. Those maps clearly made the mistake of not being A-L-I-E-N and therefore don't deserve to be nominated to rank status (or trying that for 4 times now).
Weird.
Please explain to me then how this:
was allowed to happen. Apparently there is something that staff or QAT or some people can do. The question is if it's because of modding skill or if it's just having the QAT at your mercy.
I have no idea where you got your screenshot from.
My screenshot comes from here. t/470459/start=345
And even if we use yours - the defining modal here is "Do not", not "may". By that logic as long as nobody complained we wouldn't have had any problems ranking Bloodthirsty Nightmare/The Empress in the first place.
"May" refers to the idea of considering a nominator unable to judge a 8* map when they are 60k.
Which means that I am not necessarily deemed unable to judge a 8* map if I am 60k.
Anyway this conversation is irrelevent and is not contributing in any way in getting this ranked.
Nao bubbles map
Monstrata self pops for updates
I bubble map (I could have qualified but i figured rebubbling was the safer option given the maps controversy)
Kagetsu vetos my bubble
After discussion with Monstrata, Kagetsu rescinds his veto.
I rebubble map
Sonnyc vetos my bubble
Kurai bubbles map
Thanks in advance Kynan.
it doesnt apply for quali right
show more
Topic Starter
Seeing a lot of players playing the map doesn't determine a map is unplayable. I repeatedly asked you to back up your statement, and all I got was "playability is subjective, no example you give me will convince me". The AR being too low doesn't make the map unplayable. Does it make the map harder to read? Possibly. We are talking a difference of 28 ms though. Like I said, a value above 428 ms will actually have no effect on the density of notes appearing on the screen, the approach rate will just be higher, period. Usually you recommend higher approach rates because they can contribute to leaving a map less cluttered, but I hope I've been able to argue factually that anything AR 10.2 or over would have made no difference to object density until you got to AR 10.6... As well, I've already explained that the "unpredictable transition" (singular, you only pointed out one instance) was not unpredictable and had been tested and analyzed by multiple modders and BN's, not to mention the other 63 odd pages of discussion that has gone into this thread.Kagetsu wrote:
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.Irreversible wrote:
@Kagetsu:
If you want to keep up your veto, then please proceed with properly argumenting why exactly this map is not playable -
Again, you have made no effort to discuss or list places that I need to fix, and your argument leaves no room for discussion because the counter to your "its not playable" argument is literally "but its playable".
I'll stress this again. If I were to go up to one of your 5 star maps and veto it because i thought "the map was unplayable" how would you react? By telling me it's playable. It's the same idea here. I'm telling you it's playable, and you're telling me "playability is subjective, none of the reasons i gave you (that there was an HR pass, that there are A scores, that there are multiple 90% acc scores, that multiple top 100 players have commented and said the map was playable, that many mappers and bn's even if they dislike the concept, still acknowledge that its playable etc...) are valid because they are all subjective."
Kagetsu wrote:
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.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.
I'm sorry, what?
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, surelyKagetsu wrote:
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.Irreversible wrote:
the argument "it's unplayable" is REALLY weak.
others nominators are free to overwrite my opinion by placing a bubble. isn't it how this system works?
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.
otherwise pretty good map.matches the song well and play's fine if you're actually decent unlike me.don't understand the controversy.
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.
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)
02:02:231 (1) - i think this should be a lengthened slider similar to 01:59:903 (2,2,2) before it.
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.
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.
03:03:317 (3) - this should be extended to a white tick.
03:07:390 (1) - imo this should be a circle to match 03:05:329 (1) before it.
03:11:415 (1) - it'd be a bit more fitting for this to be aheart or at least some slider art.i'd also recommend having the slider end at 03:14:868 rather than 03:13:946 .
04:45:311 (1) - ^ maybe not a heart because that'd kinda be redundant since this exists.
01:06:090 (1,1,1) - i think a few jumps here would work better than a spinner.
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)
02:02:231 (1) - i think this should be a lengthened slider similar to 01:59:903 (2,2,2) before it.
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.
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.
03:03:317 (3) - this should be extended to a white tick.
03:07:390 (1) - imo this should be a circle to match 03:05:329 (1) before it.
03:11:415 (1) - it'd be a bit more fitting for this to be a
04:45:311 (1) - ^ maybe not a heart because that'd kinda be redundant since this exists.
otherwise pretty good map.matches the song well and play's fine if you're actually decent unlike me.don't understand the controversy.
Topic Starter
Thanks for your concerns~-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 aheartor 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.
i had a talk with monstrata, and basically i'm not holding the veto on this map anymore.
monstrata changed some stuff and i think the map playability has improved. in any case, i don't really agree with the map, but i'm currently in no position of following the thread properly nor having long talks with the mapper.
gl
monstrata changed some stuff and i think the map playability has improved. in any case, i don't really agree with the map, but i'm currently in no position of following the thread properly nor having long talks with the mapper.
here's the stuff we changed
03:07 Monstrata: i can link timestamps with the jumps if that helps
03:07 Kagetsu: sec
03:09 Kagetsu: did you change this? 00:38:356 -
03:09 Monstrata: yea ppl were complaining about the wide angles
03:09 Monstrata: and the pentagon thing
03:09 Kagetsu: oh well
03:09 Kagetsu: that's ok
03:09 Monstrata: ok cool
03:09 Kagetsu: 00:40:385 (2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4) -
03:09 Kagetsu: those could be nerfed i think
03:09 Monstrata: the back and forth angle made it easier to snap to than 144 degree stuff
03:10 Monstrata: mmm
03:10 Monstrata: i think up to 00:40:385 (2,3,4,5,6,1) - is fine
03:10 Monstrata: maybe last 3 objects
03:10 Monstrata: cuz its kinda like, getting bigger
03:10 Monstrata: actually maybe i can make spacing increase more noticeably and start with lower ds? lol
03:11 Kagetsu: uh
03:11 Kagetsu: i think that would work
03:11 Kagetsu: like representing the build up
03:11 Monstrata: yea yea
03:12 Kagetsu: i don't think the spacing change should be THAT sudden
03:12 Monstrata: okay, can agree on that. and it fits my concept
03:12 Kagetsu: also i think they are currently wider than the ones on 02:55:471 -
03:13 Kagetsu: that doesn't make much sense i guess
03:14 Monstrata: the ones on 02:55:576 (2,1) - are not as big individually but some of the difficulty is cuz i emphasize white tick here with the beatpairing
03:14 Monstrata: since imo its the highest point of the song
03:15 Monstrata: before switching to the anime mapping lol
03:16 Kagetsu: is it necessary to "emphasize" the white ticks though
03:16 Monstrata: okay fixed 00:40:385 (2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4) - . the last few jumps i just kept the same, but made the first few a lot smaller
03:16 Kagetsu: i find them equal in terms of strength
03:17 Monstrata: its cuz of the guitar too, every white tick is a hgiher pitch
03:17 Monstrata: also 02:53:686 (1) - kinda sets it up to emphasize white ticks cuz of the drum
03:17 Monstrata: like i understand drum doubles to red + white, but i think players still have the idea that white tick is stronger
03:18 Kagetsu: you might want to decrease the sv on that slider as well
03:18 Kagetsu: i don't think it plays smoothly
03:19 Monstrata: i think the SV helps with landing it tho. ur supposed to play it up and down anyways
03:19 Monstrata: and move it really fast
03:20 Kagetsu: wouldn't it work with lower sv anyways?
03:20 Kagetsu: while still keeping your concept
03:20 Kagetsu: 1x to 1.25x to 1.5x
03:20 Kagetsu: or something like that
03:20 Monstrata: it doesn't build enough momentum imo,
03:20 Monstrata: well, i mean i have two other ranked maps that use the same idea which is why i think current slider length works fine too xD
03:21 Monstrata: like basically if i used lower speeds, imo players wouldn't have enough momentum for the jumps and i want to make the jumps the high point
03:22 Kagetsu: from what i've seen on the replays, players tend to fail there
03:22 Kagetsu: because they can't track the slider ball
03:23 Monstrata: i can land it pretty well xP.
03:23 Monstrata: how about i make the sliders closer
03:23 Monstrata: i think part of the reason is the jump from slider to slider
03:24 Kagetsu: i don't think that's the problem, the high sv allows you to hit the sliderhead anyway, because of slider leniency
03:26 Monstrata: mmmm i really think current SV is still fine. i'm okay with reducing a bit like to 1,90 or something, but imo players can track it
03:26 Monstrata: i really think shifting the heads is a better fix tho cuz then ppl dont have to snap to the head and adjust their speed again
03:27 Kagetsu: uh well "tracking" isn't the problem, it's more like tracking it in time
03:27 Monstrata: yea
03:27 Kagetsu: the slider isn't very lenient at the moment
03:27 Monstrata: cuz right now
03:27 Monstrata: 02:51:908 (1,1) -
03:27 Monstrata: theres still a signifncant rightward movement
03:27 Monstrata: so player has to shift from that to basically completely up/down
03:28 Monstrata: im basically suggesting something like
03:28 Monstrata: https://puu.sh/wQOb5.png
03:28 Monstrata: where the shift is now a lot more vertical so players don't have to change direction as much between sliders
03:28 Monstrata: and can focus on increasing speed
03:30 Kagetsu: well that could work,tho reducing the sv just a little bit might help as well
03:31 Monstrata: reduced the fastest one to 1.85 i guess the middle one i'll use 1.425
03:32 Kagetsu: uh okay
03:32 Kagetsu: i care a lot about these sliders actually
03:32 Kagetsu: because there's also a bpm shift
03:33 Monstrata: yea. i already explained bpm shift is small, there are a lot of shfits etc... i think the change should be adequate now
03:33 Kagetsu: i mean the offset changes too
03:33 Monstrata: okay yea i can land this easily now lol
03:33 Kagetsu: so it isn't actually that small
03:34 Kagetsu: players would be expecting the slider to be on 02:53:653 -
03:34 Monstrata: like i just played it twice and fc'ed it twice. lemme do it 3rd time so its confirmed playable right :eyes:
03:34 Monstrata: sliderhead leniency though
03:34 Monstrata: sliderhead leniency isn't associated with OD too
03:34 Kagetsu: not yet
03:34 Monstrata: so we shouldn't consider it imo,
03:35 Kagetsu: i mean the problem isn't about hitting the slider head
03:35 Kagetsu: i think i've already mentioned that xD
03:35 Monstrata: but thats kinda the song itself xP and i think when you see the change it'll be fine anyways lol
03:36 Kagetsu: ye, it's the song itself but that's not an excuse to make it less predictable than it could be imo
03:37 Monstrata: https://puu.sh/wQOqm.png
03:37 Monstrata: https://puu.sh/wQOqE.png
03:37 Monstrata: there is a bigger spacing to help with that too
03:38 Monstrata: other than that its like, i lowered sv, made the transition nearly only vertical with very little rightward movement
03:38 Monstrata: and its literally easy enough for me to fc without much issue lol
03:38 Kagetsu: alright
03:40 Kagetsu: well the other jumps i find problematic are 01:01:580 - those
03:41 Kagetsu: i think it would be better to reduce the density on those patterns
03:42 Kagetsu: i don't think stuff like 01:01:580 (1) - is actually being emphasized atm
03:42 Kagetsu: because of the thing we previously talked about
03:43 Monstrata: i can do a bigger jump onto 00:58:150 (1) -
03:43 Monstrata: but i really dont think rhythm simplifiation makes sense like
03:43 Monstrata: considering the intensity
03:43 Monstrata: it doesn't make sense to simplify any of those circles to 1/2 sliders imo.
03:43 Monstrata: so next best thing is emphasis through spacing and NC
03:44 Monstrata: one thing tho
03:44 Monstrata: 00:58:150 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - you should also consider it as a "section"
03:44 Kagetsu: yes
03:44 Monstrata: the movement is up and down and the movement is unique to this sound
03:45 Monstrata: like i said earier, i don't think ptuting specific emphasis is the best way to go too, so i think current'y its fine too if you consider emphasis by unique movement and sections
03:45 Monstrata: i also reduced spacing by quite a bit especially for stuff like 01:01:580 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) -
03:46 Kagetsu: uh
03:46 Kagetsu: but isn't about spacing imo
03:47 Monstrata: spacing and density are related
03:47 Kagetsu: yeah
03:47 Monstrata: i don't think density is changeable here so i compromised on spacing
03:47 Monstrata: i hope that makes sense xP
03:47 Kagetsu: they are related
03:47 Kagetsu: why isn't it changeable
03:47 Kagetsu: i think it makes sense to reduce density if you see it as a whole
03:48 Monstrata: cuz like i said, changing the circles to sliders doesn't fit the intensity anymore. like the clicking rhythm no longer becomes reflective of the map's increased drum frequency
03:48 Kagetsu: the way it stands now doesn't make it feel as a section in terms of rhythm
03:49 Monstrata: then let me at least explain my way and see if it makes more sense
03:49 Monstrata: 00:49:081 (1,2,3,4) - 00:49:949 (1,2,3,4) - etc... all are mapped to circles because of vocals
03:49 Monstrata: which bleeds into 00:50:819 (1,2,3,4,1) -
03:50 Monstrata: 00:56:007 (3,4,5,6) - vocal
03:50 Monstrata: 00:56:864 (3,4,5,6) - etc... and theres heavy drumming
03:50 Monstrata: 00:57:721 (3,4,5,6,1,2) - so as a result it leads into 00:57:721 (3,4,5,6,1,2) -
03:50 Monstrata: if i change the rhythm everything else doesn't fit anymore or is seen as inconsistent
03:50 Kagetsu: i think they all have the same drumming
03:50 Monstrata: which is why i think i can't compromise the density
03:51 Kagetsu: for example 00:56:650 (2) -
03:51 Kagetsu: you're not even mapping vocals here
03:51 Monstrata: but pay attention to vocal
03:51 Kagetsu: 00:56:757 - is way louder in terms of vocals
03:51 Monstrata: theres a "ch"
03:51 Monstrata: also switching to red tick emphasis isn't good cuz of drum
03:52 Monstrata: it just doesn't fit imo because you can clearly hear the vocals are denser halfway through every measure
03:52 Monstrata: 00:59:022 - 00:59:444 - vocals aren't dense 00:59:444 - 00:59:866 - vocals are dense
03:52 Monstrata: theres a clear distinction
03:53 Kagetsu: i honestly think that there's no difference between mapping it like http://i.imgur.com/ZTuRDjN.png or http://i.imgur.com/BI8fvUD.png
03:53 Monstrata: wat
03:53 Monstrata: theres a huge difference, pls consider vocals xP
03:53 Monstrata: vocal frequency
03:53 Kagetsu: vocals are all over the place tho
03:54 Monstrata: but theyr clearly doubling halfway through the white tick
03:54 Monstrata: listen at 75% speed or something so its more reflective of normal songs. the rhythm makes perfect sense, and your suggestion is ???
03:54 Kagetsu: ya but they would make a lot more sense considering the intensity of 01:01:580 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) -
03:54 Monstrata: your reasoning for using lower density is already very weak
03:55 Monstrata: im entertaining it anyways in hopes i can explain to you the spacing nerfs are adequate
03:55 Monstrata:
03:55 Monstrata: they don't make that much more sense 12 circles is fine. as well you already have very little in terms of argument for density
03:56 Kagetsu: my reasoning is for the sake of emphasizing the strong beats
03:56 Monstrata: and i also mentioned the whole 8 circle jump sequence has a unique movement to it
03:56 Monstrata: but at the same time creating emphasis onto the white tick also makes it more difficult no? when the bpm is higher the emphasis is blurred
03:56 Monstrata:
03:56 Kagetsu: so?
03:57 Monstrata: rather than considering emphasis on 01:01:580 (1) - consider emphasis through the entire section
03:57 Monstrata: they are all more or less the same spacing
03:57 Monstrata: and i already nerfed the spacing by quite a bit
03:57 Monstrata:
03:57 Kagetsu: it doesn't matter whether it's unique if the player can't actually feel it's actually unique lol
03:57 Monstrata: the player can though?
03:57 Monstrata: 01:01:151 (3,4,5,6,1) - the flow is completely different
03:58 Monstrata: 01:01:151 (3,4,5,6,1) - is clockwise rotational
03:58 Monstrata: the next section is a different zigzag flow
03:58 Monstrata: err counterclockwise rotational*
03:58 Kagetsu: 01:01:580 (1,2) - still belongs to the previous pattern
03:58 Kagetsu: if it wasn't for the nc
03:58 Monstrata: not when you consider 3
03:59 Monstrata: and exactly thats also the point
03:59 Kagetsu: you couldn't tell the difference
03:59 Kagetsu: but the change should happen at 1
03:59 Monstrata: the NC helps with identifying the pattern split
03:59 Monstrata: then
03:59 Monstrata: 01:01:151 (3,4,5,6) - reduce spacing for
03:59 Kagetsu: because there's where the music change
03:59 Monstrata: is the best option
03:59 Monstrata: because then its obvious
03:59 Monstrata: the next section is emphasized
03:59 Monstrata: ?
03:59 Kagetsu: oh well
03:59 Kagetsu: if you're willing to reduce the spacing on those
03:59 Kagetsu: then it's ok for me
03:59 Monstrata: okay
03:59 Monstrata: fixing
04:00 Monstrata: will reduce on 01:00:294 (3,4,5,6) - too for consistency
04:00 Kagetsu: ya that's obvious
04:01 Kagetsu: also why're those 00:51:250 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) -
04:01 Kagetsu: using the same kind of "flow"
04:01 Kagetsu: oh also 00:52:216 - whistle pls ty
04:01 Monstrata: fixed whistle
04:02 Monstrata: 00:51:250 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - wasn't as significant so i didnt map it in a way where it stood out as much as the jumps we talked about earlier
04:02 Kagetsu: well the whistle issue has been fixed, i guess i don't need to hold the veto anymore
04:02 Kagetsu: right
04:03 Monstrata: okay
04:03 Monstrata: lemme finish nerfing these circles
04:03 Monstrata: gotta keep consistency lol
04:04 Kagetsu: hmm kinda didn't get your reasoning
04:04 Kagetsu: on those
04:04 Kagetsu: 00:51:250 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) -
04:05 Monstrata: the 8 note drum sequence didnt sound as important as like 01:01:580 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) -
04:05 Monstrata: anyways for uh
04:05 Monstrata: 00:50:819 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - i wehtn with zigzag flow and 00:54:304 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - i went with rotational
04:05 Monstrata: so theres some variety there too
04:05 Kagetsu: ya, that's why i was thinking it was inconsistent
04:05 Kagetsu: like the zig zag is kinda random
04:06 Monstrata: but ye i think separating them by visual patterns and NC is good when im not making them super influential
04:06 Kagetsu: well anyways it's not like it was too important anyway
04:06 Monstrata: 00:51:250 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - this? but its like 1>3>5>7 ad 2>4>6>8 are following ladder sequence
04:06 Monstrata: so i don't think its thaat random
04:06 Kagetsu: it's up to you if you want to change those
04:06 Monstrata: id prefer to keep
04:07 Kagetsu: why you had to use such a linear movement here 00:56:221 (5,6,1) -
04:08 Kagetsu: doesn't it look kinda inconsistent and bad in terms of playability?
04:08 Monstrata: mmm its just zigzag movement tho
04:08 Monstrata: consider 4>5
04:08 Monstrata: its the same movement from 6>1
04:08 Monstrata: once you click on 4, you move downward, once you click on 5 you move upward
04:09 Monstrata: once you click on 6 you move downward ad once you click on 1 you move upward so the flow makes sense considering how the circles dictated the player's movement
04:09 Monstrata: anyways i updated ;o
04:09 Kagetsu: no no, actually i think it was my bad
04:09 Kagetsu: i think i moved the circle and the movement was crappy as hell
04:10 Monstrata: oh lo
04:10 Monstrata: okay then, i guess recheck since i updated?
04:10 Monstrata: hopefully theyre good
04:11 Kagetsu: did you reduce the spacing on 01:01:151 (3,4,5,6) - tho
04:11 Monstrata: yea
04:12 Monstrata: 01:01:151 (3,4) - pretty different from 01:01:580 (1,2) -
04:13 Kagetsu: uh
04:13 Kagetsu: yeah
04:14 Kagetsu: i remember it was harder now
04:16 Monstrata: yea
04:16 Kagetsu: what was your reasoning for this one 02:55:893 - again?
04:17 Kagetsu: i can't find the post lmao
04:17 Monstrata: p/6148111
04:18 Monstrata: could also check hobbes discussion on p/6145682 etc... i guess since its kinda relevant
04:18 Kagetsu: don't you think the rotation changes from 1 to 2?
04:18 Monstrata: the angle is the same as all the other jumps
04:19 Kagetsu: i mean i know you don't want to change this because it would destroy your pattern
04:19 Kagetsu: but i think it could be done better
04:20 Kagetsu: something easier to hit
04:21 Kagetsu: also... could you nerf the distance from 02:56:210 (2) - to 02:56:316 (1) - ?
04:22 Monstrata: https://puu.sh/wQPDA.png
04:22 Monstrata: it feels fine honestly, like the flow is good xP
04:22 Monstrata: and mmm
04:22 Monstrata: 02:56:316 (1) - i really want to end on a strong note xP
04:22 Kagetsu: it can still be strong with less spacing than the current one
04:23 Monstrata: i can reduce, but not by much basically xP
04:23 Monstrata: cuz imo its very justified as the final note
04:24 Monstrata: https://puu.sh/wQPHK.png
04:24 Monstrata: for visual patter
04:24 Monstrata: n
04:25 Monstrata: because of the structure, people are expecting to jump to 02:55:471 (1) - anyways so imo its not a whole lot bigger than ppls expectations
04:25 Kagetsu: uh i guess
04:26 Kagetsu: it doesn't change too much anyway
04:26 Kagetsu: but i'm actually not as worried about that jump
04:26 Kagetsu: it's just that i find the pattern uhh idk, kinda forced
04:27 Monstrata: well, its the highest point in the map, and theres literally like 6 measures of guitars / drums that build up to it
04:27 Monstrata: so i think its fair to use this patterning
04:28 Kagetsu: when i said forced i'm not talking about the distance, but rather about how the jumps are arranged
04:28 Kagetsu: it's the arrangement the thing i find forced, not the distance itself
04:28 Monstrata: theyre emphasizing the white tick like i said earlier, cuz of the guitar going up and down in pitch
04:29 Kagetsu: ye, that's true but the intensity in the song is increasing too
04:29 Kagetsu: i think it should be more like a build up
04:30 Monstrata: the whole section is the highlight with the final circle ending it imo
04:30 Monstrata: cuz its similar to the earlier sliders
04:30 Monstrata: where the whole slider represents one "level" of building up
04:32 Kagetsu: uh
04:32 Kagetsu: the guitar is fairly constant tho
04:32 Monstrata: pitch xP
04:33 Monstrata: and also the drums from before also lead people to think of white tick as stronger
04:33 Kagetsu: i mean, within their own level as you said
04:33 Monstrata: 02:53:686 - 02:53:908 - etc..
04:33 Kagetsu: like here is constant 02:50:353 (1) -
04:33 Kagetsu: then it's stronger here, but still constant 02:51:908 (1) -
04:33 Kagetsu: and so on
04:33 Monstrata: well, cuz its sliders xP.
04:33 Kagetsu: it's just that i don't think that's the case for the jumps
04:33 Monstrata: i think the jump sequence makes sense right now
04:34 Monstrata: and i think its justified to emphasize white ticks and have this arrangement honestly
04:34 Monstrata: already reduced spacing by a fair bit to compromise
04:34 Monstrata: so zzz
04:34 Kagetsu: honestly, higher spacing would make it easier to play lol
04:34 Kagetsu: but ya whatever
04:36 Monstrata: okay i can update ?
04:36 Monstrata: to fix the spacing for 02:56:316 (1) -
04:37 Kagetsu: sure
04:37 Monstrata: kk updated
04:46 Monstrata: hope its good now owo
04:46 Kagetsu: uh
04:47 Kagetsu: i'm happy with the outcome but i still think this is too much lol 00:58:150 -
04:47 Kagetsu: wait
04:47 Kagetsu: wrong timestamp
04:47 Kagetsu: i meant this 01:01:580 -
04:47 Monstrata: too much as in
04:48 Monstrata: 01:01:151 (3,4,5,6,1) - still too similar?
04:48 Monstrata: cuz i can move 01:01:473 (6) - up so it looks more different
04:49 Kagetsu: ye, you might also want to reduce the spacing on this pattern 01:01:580 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) -
04:49 Monstrata: mmm okay
04:49 Monstrata: i'll move
04:49 Monstrata: 01:01:473 (6) -
04:49 Monstrata: wait
04:49 Monstrata: 01:01:687 (2,4,6,8) -
04:49 Monstrata: down a bit more
04:49 Monstrata: https://puu.sh/wQQl6.jpg
04:51 Monstrata: also made 01:02:116 (6,7) - a bit smaller too cuz they were standing out
04:51 Kagetsu: ye that's an issue too
04:52 Monstrata: ye fixing it to be consistent
04:52 Monstrata: tell me when i can update i guess
04:52 Kagetsu: should also reduce the previous pattern?
04:52 Kagetsu: so that the last one stands out?
04:52 Monstrata: previous one?
04:52 Monstrata: 00:58:150 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - ?
04:52 Monstrata: sure
04:53 Kagetsu: ya, the one who uses the same flow
04:53 Kagetsu: but less intense
04:53 Monstrata: i reduced it a bit but not too much cuz imo its still kinda obvious the second one is bigger
04:54 Kagetsu: oh
04:55 Kagetsu: is it necessary that the visual distance between 01:02:008 (5) - and 01:02:223 (7) - is so different?
04:55 Monstrata: im fixing that
04:55 Kagetsu: when comparing to previous patterning
04:55 Monstrata: hang on
04:55 Monstrata: https://puu.sh/wQQsN.png
04:55 Monstrata: less different now
04:55 Monstrata: i think
04:56 Monstrata: i mean visually its still different cuz the aesthetic fits the map's concept imo
04:56 Kagetsu: ya i mean
04:56 Kagetsu: we're not looking for equal spacing either
04:56 Kagetsu: just not as different as it was
04:56 Monstrata: yea.
04:56 Kagetsu: i guess it's ok now
04:56 Monstrata: i think this is fair now
04:56 Monstrata: sweet
04:57 Kagetsu: update it then
04:58 Monstrata: kk updated
05:01 Kagetsu: alright
05:01 Kagetsu: gonna write something then
05:01 Monstrata: ok sweet
03:07 Kagetsu: sec
03:09 Kagetsu: did you change this? 00:38:356 -
03:09 Monstrata: yea ppl were complaining about the wide angles
03:09 Monstrata: and the pentagon thing
03:09 Kagetsu: oh well
03:09 Kagetsu: that's ok
03:09 Monstrata: ok cool
03:09 Kagetsu: 00:40:385 (2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4) -
03:09 Kagetsu: those could be nerfed i think
03:09 Monstrata: the back and forth angle made it easier to snap to than 144 degree stuff
03:10 Monstrata: mmm
03:10 Monstrata: i think up to 00:40:385 (2,3,4,5,6,1) - is fine
03:10 Monstrata: maybe last 3 objects
03:10 Monstrata: cuz its kinda like, getting bigger
03:10 Monstrata: actually maybe i can make spacing increase more noticeably and start with lower ds? lol
03:11 Kagetsu: uh
03:11 Kagetsu: i think that would work
03:11 Kagetsu: like representing the build up
03:11 Monstrata: yea yea
03:12 Kagetsu: i don't think the spacing change should be THAT sudden
03:12 Monstrata: okay, can agree on that. and it fits my concept
03:12 Kagetsu: also i think they are currently wider than the ones on 02:55:471 -
03:13 Kagetsu: that doesn't make much sense i guess
03:14 Monstrata: the ones on 02:55:576 (2,1) - are not as big individually but some of the difficulty is cuz i emphasize white tick here with the beatpairing
03:14 Monstrata: since imo its the highest point of the song
03:15 Monstrata: before switching to the anime mapping lol
03:16 Kagetsu: is it necessary to "emphasize" the white ticks though
03:16 Monstrata: okay fixed 00:40:385 (2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4) - . the last few jumps i just kept the same, but made the first few a lot smaller
03:16 Kagetsu: i find them equal in terms of strength
03:17 Monstrata: its cuz of the guitar too, every white tick is a hgiher pitch
03:17 Monstrata: also 02:53:686 (1) - kinda sets it up to emphasize white ticks cuz of the drum
03:17 Monstrata: like i understand drum doubles to red + white, but i think players still have the idea that white tick is stronger
03:18 Kagetsu: you might want to decrease the sv on that slider as well
03:18 Kagetsu: i don't think it plays smoothly
03:19 Monstrata: i think the SV helps with landing it tho. ur supposed to play it up and down anyways
03:19 Monstrata: and move it really fast
03:20 Kagetsu: wouldn't it work with lower sv anyways?
03:20 Kagetsu: while still keeping your concept
03:20 Kagetsu: 1x to 1.25x to 1.5x
03:20 Kagetsu: or something like that
03:20 Monstrata: it doesn't build enough momentum imo,
03:20 Monstrata: well, i mean i have two other ranked maps that use the same idea which is why i think current slider length works fine too xD
03:21 Monstrata: like basically if i used lower speeds, imo players wouldn't have enough momentum for the jumps and i want to make the jumps the high point
03:22 Kagetsu: from what i've seen on the replays, players tend to fail there
03:22 Kagetsu: because they can't track the slider ball
03:23 Monstrata: i can land it pretty well xP.
03:23 Monstrata: how about i make the sliders closer
03:23 Monstrata: i think part of the reason is the jump from slider to slider
03:24 Kagetsu: i don't think that's the problem, the high sv allows you to hit the sliderhead anyway, because of slider leniency
03:26 Monstrata: mmmm i really think current SV is still fine. i'm okay with reducing a bit like to 1,90 or something, but imo players can track it
03:26 Monstrata: i really think shifting the heads is a better fix tho cuz then ppl dont have to snap to the head and adjust their speed again
03:27 Kagetsu: uh well "tracking" isn't the problem, it's more like tracking it in time
03:27 Monstrata: yea
03:27 Kagetsu: the slider isn't very lenient at the moment
03:27 Monstrata: cuz right now
03:27 Monstrata: 02:51:908 (1,1) -
03:27 Monstrata: theres still a signifncant rightward movement
03:27 Monstrata: so player has to shift from that to basically completely up/down
03:28 Monstrata: im basically suggesting something like
03:28 Monstrata: https://puu.sh/wQOb5.png
03:28 Monstrata: where the shift is now a lot more vertical so players don't have to change direction as much between sliders
03:28 Monstrata: and can focus on increasing speed
03:30 Kagetsu: well that could work,tho reducing the sv just a little bit might help as well
03:31 Monstrata: reduced the fastest one to 1.85 i guess the middle one i'll use 1.425
03:32 Kagetsu: uh okay
03:32 Kagetsu: i care a lot about these sliders actually
03:32 Kagetsu: because there's also a bpm shift
03:33 Monstrata: yea. i already explained bpm shift is small, there are a lot of shfits etc... i think the change should be adequate now
03:33 Kagetsu: i mean the offset changes too
03:33 Monstrata: okay yea i can land this easily now lol
03:33 Kagetsu: so it isn't actually that small
03:34 Kagetsu: players would be expecting the slider to be on 02:53:653 -
03:34 Monstrata: like i just played it twice and fc'ed it twice. lemme do it 3rd time so its confirmed playable right :eyes:
03:34 Monstrata: sliderhead leniency though
03:34 Monstrata: sliderhead leniency isn't associated with OD too
03:34 Kagetsu: not yet
03:34 Monstrata: so we shouldn't consider it imo,
03:35 Kagetsu: i mean the problem isn't about hitting the slider head
03:35 Kagetsu: i think i've already mentioned that xD
03:35 Monstrata: but thats kinda the song itself xP and i think when you see the change it'll be fine anyways lol
03:36 Kagetsu: ye, it's the song itself but that's not an excuse to make it less predictable than it could be imo
03:37 Monstrata: https://puu.sh/wQOqm.png
03:37 Monstrata: https://puu.sh/wQOqE.png
03:37 Monstrata: there is a bigger spacing to help with that too
03:38 Monstrata: other than that its like, i lowered sv, made the transition nearly only vertical with very little rightward movement
03:38 Monstrata: and its literally easy enough for me to fc without much issue lol
03:38 Kagetsu: alright
03:40 Kagetsu: well the other jumps i find problematic are 01:01:580 - those
03:41 Kagetsu: i think it would be better to reduce the density on those patterns
03:42 Kagetsu: i don't think stuff like 01:01:580 (1) - is actually being emphasized atm
03:42 Kagetsu: because of the thing we previously talked about
03:43 Monstrata: i can do a bigger jump onto 00:58:150 (1) -
03:43 Monstrata: but i really dont think rhythm simplifiation makes sense like
03:43 Monstrata: considering the intensity
03:43 Monstrata: it doesn't make sense to simplify any of those circles to 1/2 sliders imo.
03:43 Monstrata: so next best thing is emphasis through spacing and NC
03:44 Monstrata: one thing tho
03:44 Monstrata: 00:58:150 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - you should also consider it as a "section"
03:44 Kagetsu: yes
03:44 Monstrata: the movement is up and down and the movement is unique to this sound
03:45 Monstrata: like i said earier, i don't think ptuting specific emphasis is the best way to go too, so i think current'y its fine too if you consider emphasis by unique movement and sections
03:45 Monstrata: i also reduced spacing by quite a bit especially for stuff like 01:01:580 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) -
03:46 Kagetsu: uh
03:46 Kagetsu: but isn't about spacing imo
03:47 Monstrata: spacing and density are related
03:47 Kagetsu: yeah
03:47 Monstrata: i don't think density is changeable here so i compromised on spacing
03:47 Monstrata: i hope that makes sense xP
03:47 Kagetsu: they are related
03:47 Kagetsu: why isn't it changeable
03:47 Kagetsu: i think it makes sense to reduce density if you see it as a whole
03:48 Monstrata: cuz like i said, changing the circles to sliders doesn't fit the intensity anymore. like the clicking rhythm no longer becomes reflective of the map's increased drum frequency
03:48 Kagetsu: the way it stands now doesn't make it feel as a section in terms of rhythm
03:49 Monstrata: then let me at least explain my way and see if it makes more sense
03:49 Monstrata: 00:49:081 (1,2,3,4) - 00:49:949 (1,2,3,4) - etc... all are mapped to circles because of vocals
03:49 Monstrata: which bleeds into 00:50:819 (1,2,3,4,1) -
03:50 Monstrata: 00:56:007 (3,4,5,6) - vocal
03:50 Monstrata: 00:56:864 (3,4,5,6) - etc... and theres heavy drumming
03:50 Monstrata: 00:57:721 (3,4,5,6,1,2) - so as a result it leads into 00:57:721 (3,4,5,6,1,2) -
03:50 Monstrata: if i change the rhythm everything else doesn't fit anymore or is seen as inconsistent
03:50 Kagetsu: i think they all have the same drumming
03:50 Monstrata: which is why i think i can't compromise the density
03:51 Kagetsu: for example 00:56:650 (2) -
03:51 Kagetsu: you're not even mapping vocals here
03:51 Monstrata: but pay attention to vocal
03:51 Kagetsu: 00:56:757 - is way louder in terms of vocals
03:51 Monstrata: theres a "ch"
03:51 Monstrata: also switching to red tick emphasis isn't good cuz of drum
03:52 Monstrata: it just doesn't fit imo because you can clearly hear the vocals are denser halfway through every measure
03:52 Monstrata: 00:59:022 - 00:59:444 - vocals aren't dense 00:59:444 - 00:59:866 - vocals are dense
03:52 Monstrata: theres a clear distinction
03:53 Kagetsu: i honestly think that there's no difference between mapping it like http://i.imgur.com/ZTuRDjN.png or http://i.imgur.com/BI8fvUD.png
03:53 Monstrata: wat
03:53 Monstrata: theres a huge difference, pls consider vocals xP
03:53 Monstrata: vocal frequency
03:53 Kagetsu: vocals are all over the place tho
03:54 Monstrata: but theyr clearly doubling halfway through the white tick
03:54 Monstrata: listen at 75% speed or something so its more reflective of normal songs. the rhythm makes perfect sense, and your suggestion is ???
03:54 Kagetsu: ya but they would make a lot more sense considering the intensity of 01:01:580 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) -
03:54 Monstrata: your reasoning for using lower density is already very weak
03:55 Monstrata: im entertaining it anyways in hopes i can explain to you the spacing nerfs are adequate
03:55 Monstrata:
03:55 Monstrata: they don't make that much more sense
12 circles is fine. as well you already have very little in terms of argument for density 03:56 Kagetsu: my reasoning is for the sake of emphasizing the strong beats
03:56 Monstrata: and i also mentioned the whole 8 circle jump sequence has a unique movement to it
03:56 Monstrata: but at the same time creating emphasis onto the white tick also makes it more difficult no? when the bpm is higher the emphasis is blurred
03:56 Monstrata:
03:56 Kagetsu: so?
03:57 Monstrata: rather than considering emphasis on 01:01:580 (1) - consider emphasis through the entire section
03:57 Monstrata: they are all more or less the same spacing
03:57 Monstrata: and i already nerfed the spacing by quite a bit
03:57 Monstrata:
03:57 Kagetsu: it doesn't matter whether it's unique if the player can't actually feel it's actually unique lol
03:57 Monstrata: the player can though?
03:57 Monstrata: 01:01:151 (3,4,5,6,1) - the flow is completely different
03:58 Monstrata: 01:01:151 (3,4,5,6,1) - is clockwise rotational
03:58 Monstrata: the next section is a different zigzag flow
03:58 Monstrata: err counterclockwise rotational*
03:58 Kagetsu: 01:01:580 (1,2) - still belongs to the previous pattern
03:58 Kagetsu: if it wasn't for the nc
03:58 Monstrata: not when you consider 3
03:59 Monstrata: and exactly thats also the point
03:59 Kagetsu: you couldn't tell the difference
03:59 Kagetsu: but the change should happen at 1
03:59 Monstrata: the NC helps with identifying the pattern split
03:59 Monstrata: then
03:59 Monstrata: 01:01:151 (3,4,5,6) - reduce spacing for
03:59 Kagetsu: because there's where the music change
03:59 Monstrata: is the best option
03:59 Monstrata: because then its obvious
03:59 Monstrata: the next section is emphasized
03:59 Monstrata: ?
03:59 Kagetsu: oh well
03:59 Kagetsu: if you're willing to reduce the spacing on those
03:59 Kagetsu: then it's ok for me
03:59 Monstrata: okay
03:59 Monstrata: fixing
04:00 Monstrata: will reduce on 01:00:294 (3,4,5,6) - too for consistency
04:00 Kagetsu: ya that's obvious
04:01 Kagetsu: also why're those 00:51:250 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) -
04:01 Kagetsu: using the same kind of "flow"
04:01 Kagetsu: oh also 00:52:216 - whistle pls ty
04:01 Monstrata: fixed whistle
04:02 Monstrata: 00:51:250 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - wasn't as significant so i didnt map it in a way where it stood out as much as the jumps we talked about earlier
04:02 Kagetsu: well the whistle issue has been fixed, i guess i don't need to hold the veto anymore
04:02 Kagetsu: right
04:03 Monstrata: okay
04:03 Monstrata: lemme finish nerfing these circles
04:03 Monstrata: gotta keep consistency lol
04:04 Kagetsu: hmm kinda didn't get your reasoning
04:04 Kagetsu: on those
04:04 Kagetsu: 00:51:250 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) -
04:05 Monstrata: the 8 note drum sequence didnt sound as important as like 01:01:580 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) -
04:05 Monstrata: anyways for uh
04:05 Monstrata: 00:50:819 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - i wehtn with zigzag flow and 00:54:304 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - i went with rotational
04:05 Monstrata: so theres some variety there too
04:05 Kagetsu: ya, that's why i was thinking it was inconsistent
04:05 Kagetsu: like the zig zag is kinda random
04:06 Monstrata: but ye i think separating them by visual patterns and NC is good when im not making them super influential
04:06 Kagetsu: well anyways it's not like it was too important anyway
04:06 Monstrata: 00:51:250 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - this? but its like 1>3>5>7 ad 2>4>6>8 are following ladder sequence
04:06 Monstrata: so i don't think its thaat random
04:06 Kagetsu: it's up to you if you want to change those
04:06 Monstrata: id prefer to keep
04:07 Kagetsu: why you had to use such a linear movement here 00:56:221 (5,6,1) -
04:08 Kagetsu: doesn't it look kinda inconsistent and bad in terms of playability?
04:08 Monstrata: mmm its just zigzag movement tho
04:08 Monstrata: consider 4>5
04:08 Monstrata: its the same movement from 6>1
04:08 Monstrata: once you click on 4, you move downward, once you click on 5 you move upward
04:09 Monstrata: once you click on 6 you move downward ad once you click on 1 you move upward so the flow makes sense considering how the circles dictated the player's movement
04:09 Monstrata: anyways i updated ;o
04:09 Kagetsu: no no, actually i think it was my bad
04:09 Kagetsu: i think i moved the circle and the movement was crappy as hell
04:10 Monstrata: oh lo
04:10 Monstrata: okay then, i guess recheck since i updated?
04:10 Monstrata: hopefully theyre good
04:11 Kagetsu: did you reduce the spacing on 01:01:151 (3,4,5,6) - tho
04:11 Monstrata: yea
04:12 Monstrata: 01:01:151 (3,4) - pretty different from 01:01:580 (1,2) -
04:13 Kagetsu: uh
04:13 Kagetsu: yeah
04:14 Kagetsu: i remember it was harder now
04:16 Monstrata: yea
04:16 Kagetsu: what was your reasoning for this one 02:55:893 - again?
04:17 Kagetsu: i can't find the post lmao
04:17 Monstrata: p/6148111
04:18 Monstrata: could also check hobbes discussion on p/6145682 etc... i guess since its kinda relevant
04:18 Kagetsu: don't you think the rotation changes from 1 to 2?
04:18 Monstrata: the angle is the same as all the other jumps
04:19 Kagetsu: i mean i know you don't want to change this because it would destroy your pattern
04:19 Kagetsu: but i think it could be done better
04:20 Kagetsu: something easier to hit
04:21 Kagetsu: also... could you nerf the distance from 02:56:210 (2) - to 02:56:316 (1) - ?
04:22 Monstrata: https://puu.sh/wQPDA.png
04:22 Monstrata: it feels fine honestly, like the flow is good xP
04:22 Monstrata: and mmm
04:22 Monstrata: 02:56:316 (1) - i really want to end on a strong note xP
04:22 Kagetsu: it can still be strong with less spacing than the current one
04:23 Monstrata: i can reduce, but not by much basically xP
04:23 Monstrata: cuz imo its very justified as the final note
04:24 Monstrata: https://puu.sh/wQPHK.png
04:24 Monstrata: for visual patter
04:24 Monstrata: n
04:25 Monstrata: because of the structure, people are expecting to jump to 02:55:471 (1) - anyways so imo its not a whole lot bigger than ppls expectations
04:25 Kagetsu: uh i guess
04:26 Kagetsu: it doesn't change too much anyway
04:26 Kagetsu: but i'm actually not as worried about that jump
04:26 Kagetsu: it's just that i find the pattern uhh idk, kinda forced
04:27 Monstrata: well, its the highest point in the map, and theres literally like 6 measures of guitars / drums that build up to it
04:27 Monstrata: so i think its fair to use this patterning
04:28 Kagetsu: when i said forced i'm not talking about the distance, but rather about how the jumps are arranged
04:28 Kagetsu: it's the arrangement the thing i find forced, not the distance itself
04:28 Monstrata: theyre emphasizing the white tick like i said earlier, cuz of the guitar going up and down in pitch
04:29 Kagetsu: ye, that's true but the intensity in the song is increasing too
04:29 Kagetsu: i think it should be more like a build up
04:30 Monstrata: the whole section is the highlight with the final circle ending it imo
04:30 Monstrata: cuz its similar to the earlier sliders
04:30 Monstrata: where the whole slider represents one "level" of building up
04:32 Kagetsu: uh
04:32 Kagetsu: the guitar is fairly constant tho
04:32 Monstrata: pitch xP
04:33 Monstrata: and also the drums from before also lead people to think of white tick as stronger
04:33 Kagetsu: i mean, within their own level as you said
04:33 Monstrata: 02:53:686 - 02:53:908 - etc..
04:33 Kagetsu: like here is constant 02:50:353 (1) -
04:33 Kagetsu: then it's stronger here, but still constant 02:51:908 (1) -
04:33 Kagetsu: and so on
04:33 Monstrata: well, cuz its sliders xP.
04:33 Kagetsu: it's just that i don't think that's the case for the jumps
04:33 Monstrata: i think the jump sequence makes sense right now
04:34 Monstrata: and i think its justified to emphasize white ticks and have this arrangement honestly
04:34 Monstrata: already reduced spacing by a fair bit to compromise
04:34 Monstrata: so zzz
04:34 Kagetsu: honestly, higher spacing would make it easier to play lol
04:34 Kagetsu: but ya whatever
04:36 Monstrata: okay i can update ?
04:36 Monstrata: to fix the spacing for 02:56:316 (1) -
04:37 Kagetsu: sure
04:37 Monstrata: kk updated
04:46 Monstrata: hope its good now owo
04:46 Kagetsu: uh
04:47 Kagetsu: i'm happy with the outcome but i still think this is too much lol 00:58:150 -
04:47 Kagetsu: wait
04:47 Kagetsu: wrong timestamp
04:47 Kagetsu: i meant this 01:01:580 -
04:47 Monstrata: too much as in
04:48 Monstrata: 01:01:151 (3,4,5,6,1) - still too similar?
04:48 Monstrata: cuz i can move 01:01:473 (6) - up so it looks more different
04:49 Kagetsu: ye, you might also want to reduce the spacing on this pattern 01:01:580 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) -
04:49 Monstrata: mmm okay
04:49 Monstrata: i'll move
04:49 Monstrata: 01:01:473 (6) -
04:49 Monstrata: wait
04:49 Monstrata: 01:01:687 (2,4,6,8) -
04:49 Monstrata: down a bit more
04:49 Monstrata: https://puu.sh/wQQl6.jpg
04:51 Monstrata: also made 01:02:116 (6,7) - a bit smaller too cuz they were standing out
04:51 Kagetsu: ye that's an issue too
04:52 Monstrata: ye fixing it to be consistent
04:52 Monstrata: tell me when i can update i guess
04:52 Kagetsu: should also reduce the previous pattern?
04:52 Kagetsu: so that the last one stands out?
04:52 Monstrata: previous one?
04:52 Monstrata: 00:58:150 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - ?
04:52 Monstrata: sure
04:53 Kagetsu: ya, the one who uses the same flow
04:53 Kagetsu: but less intense
04:53 Monstrata: i reduced it a bit but not too much cuz imo its still kinda obvious the second one is bigger
04:54 Kagetsu: oh
04:55 Kagetsu: is it necessary that the visual distance between 01:02:008 (5) - and 01:02:223 (7) - is so different?
04:55 Monstrata: im fixing that
04:55 Kagetsu: when comparing to previous patterning
04:55 Monstrata: hang on
04:55 Monstrata: https://puu.sh/wQQsN.png
04:55 Monstrata: less different now
04:55 Monstrata: i think
04:56 Monstrata: i mean visually its still different cuz the aesthetic fits the map's concept imo
04:56 Kagetsu: ya i mean
04:56 Kagetsu: we're not looking for equal spacing either
04:56 Kagetsu: just not as different as it was
04:56 Monstrata: yea.
04:56 Kagetsu: i guess it's ok now
04:56 Monstrata: i think this is fair now
04:56 Monstrata: sweet
04:57 Kagetsu: update it then
04:58 Monstrata: kk updated
05:01 Kagetsu: alright
05:01 Kagetsu: gonna write something then
05:01 Monstrata: ok sweet
gl
honestly as long as the map plays good, who cares? haha guys were playing a game!! 
XD
XDThis map is cool and follow well the music, using intersting concepts to represent song concepts. Why is there a problem with this map?
To be honest, knowing Monstrata mapping knowledge should be a proof enough to see that he know what he's doing with this map, if you can't understand the concepts he use because "it's ugly", I think you should just move on.
To be honest, knowing Monstrata mapping knowledge should be a proof enough to see that he know what he's doing with this map, if you can't understand the concepts he use because "it's ugly", I think you should just move on.
Few things I noticed while testplaying the map:
- 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.
- 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:
- 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.
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. 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.
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. 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.
Please be Ranked
Topic Starter
Kurai wrote:
Few things I noticed while testplaying the map:
- 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.
- 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:
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.- 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.
P.S. Leffen, I ain't done yet
02:55:471 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - was changed so the objects are the same distance from each other, since the white tick emphasis is kinda lost at this bpm so having a more playable pattern is the preferred alternative.
Everyone's concerns have been addressed, so here we go
02:55:471 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - was changed so the objects are the same distance from each other, since the white tick emphasis is kinda lost at this bpm so having a more playable pattern is the preferred alternative.
Everyone's concerns have been addressed, so here we go
good luck big boy
Kurai wrote:
good luck big boy
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
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
Well it fits the intensity I guess, and even in that last calm half part it builds up nicely as the song goesE 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
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:
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.
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:
- 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?
- 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.
- 00:27:195 (4,1) -
- 00:28:496 (3,4) -
- 00:30:624 (1,4) -
- 00:33:189 (1,2,3,4) -
- 00:36:647 (1,3) -
- 00:41:128 (3,5) -
- 00:52:216 (2,1) -
- 00:54:304 (1,4) -
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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?
- 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.
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.
Topic Starter
Please consider pattern variety before saying that a patterns must be mapped consistently. Additioanlly, also consider nearly every slider in the metal section is unique. There isn't a lot of pattern similarity to begin with so I really don't think arguing for consistency is fair for this map's theme. Tell me how consistent the visual aspect of the map is. It's not consistent at all. So I think it's very fair that I express the same sections of music (being repeated) in a different manner and use different flows / object placements / location of overlaps.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:Also I'd like to mention some structure issues additionally.
- 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.- 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...- 00:27:195 (4,1) - ^
- 00:28:496 (3,4) -
- 00:30:624 (1,4) -
- 00:33:189 (1,2,3,4) -
- 00:36:647 (1,3) -
- 00:41:128 (3,5) -
- 00:52:216 (2,1) -
- 00:54:304 (1,4) -
- 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.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
- 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
- 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...- 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?
- 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?
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.
Really well made map very fun at least for me as an alternator. Slider stream jump thing is really really satisfying.
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
00:53:096 (2) - make this have a small qurick like 00:53:975 (2) - :>
01:35:165 (4) - Imo the quirck isnt very hitting since its under another slider body. You could make it a bit more noticeable 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
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. 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
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 : )
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:
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)
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.
this is a meme-free zone now
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
00:53:096 (2) - make this have a small qurick like 00:53:975 (2) - :>
01:35:165 (4) - Imo the quirck isnt very hitting since its under another slider body. You could make it a bit more noticeable 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
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. 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
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 : )
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:
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)
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.
this is a meme-free zone now
Topic Starter
tytySmokeman 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
Teach me how to make a slow interlude 8*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
:thinking:
I think they were more thinking along the lines of "tone down the 8 star section to low 7 or high 6 star, and bump up the high 3 star section to low 4 star" as a suggestion. That is, to reign in the more extreme elements on both the high and low ends of the spectrum to create less of a jarring contrast. While it is a valid suggestion, I think Monstrata's already addressed the idea and why he thinks it won't fit his vision for the map several times alreadyAthrun wrote:
Teach me how to make a slow interlude 8*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
:thinking:
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?
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.
Some fragmentary examples again:
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.
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.
Some fragmentary examples again:
- 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?
- 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.
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.
Topic Starter
I think you're really grasping at straws here, especially with how you're trying to attach some mapping significance to every minute detail in the song. I can't give you a reason why I changed flow at exactly this point, for every object in the map, yet you are pinpointing them as an issue that prevents it from being ranked. Look at any of my ranked maps, sure they respect emphasis, flow, and movement to a good degree, but none of them follow it exactly. I don't have a system that says "oh this is a downbeat, I need to switch flow from counterclockwise to clockwise now". That is far too restrictive, and results in extremely boring and predictable mapping.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: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.
- 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.
- 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.
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.
Well, I'll just ask Kurai for help then because I really think there is no basis for this veto at all. You are free to reconsider your points if you want to discuss them further.
Topic Starter
I'd also recommend you taking a look at maps like:
RADWIMPS - Nandemo Nai ya
IAHN - Transform (Original Mix)
Porter Robinson - Goodbye To A World
In terms of how they handled pattern variation, or lack thereof. Your argument was that there were no real distinctions between vocal / non vocal sections in terms of patterning on the Winny Upload section, yet Nandemo Nai ya uses the same sliders and flows for vocal / non vocal sections all the time.
(See: 04:11:400 (2,3,4,5,1) - 04:24:614 (2,3,1) - 04:31:757 (2,3) - 02:21:936 (3,4,1) - 02:42:650 (1,1) - etc...) There is no concept of distinction between vocal / non-vocal expression because they aren't inherently different. I use the same curved slider for a vocal note, then again when there are no vocals. They used the same flow, there was no unique spacing shift, or any noticeable movement/rotational shift.
In terms of flow, you argued for there being some justification of when flow shifts occur. I don't believe maps need to change flow at specific points of time, and as a result, my maps often demonstrate flow shifts that occur outside of downbeats or noticeably strong/unique sounds. On Transform, you can see flow shifts taken place on places like:
(See: 01:47:726 (5) - 00:30:225 (4,1,2) - 00:32:036 (3,4,5) - 01:29:278 (2) - etc...)
You also argued for there being some sort of justification for clockwise / anti-clockwise / zigzag flow, and argued that there should be some musical justification for mapping these changes. I don't believe there absolutely needs to be musical justification, and I think variety as a reason should be enough. On Goodbye To A World, there are a lot of slider spam sections that use a variety of clockwise, anti clockwise, and zigzag flowing slider movements. My selection of pattern and design did not follow any predictable flow concept, ie some sections were clockwise, and switched to counterclockwise or zigzag in arbitrary sections.
(See: 03:15:027 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - 01:15:027 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - etc...)
My argument being that these maps have a lot of examples of places where I break, or don't even consider the issues you brought up in your mod post. Yet, these maps were clearly constructed with structure, aesthetic, flow, and movements in mind - a lot more structural, patternal, and aesthetical reasoning than Alien's metal sections - so there would have been even more reason to bring stuff like this up on those maps seeing as I wasn't even trying to create visual inconsistencies like alien, or aesthetically displeasing patterns. These maps demonstrate clear issues according to your mod on alien... Yet you nominated these maps.
RADWIMPS - Nandemo Nai ya
IAHN - Transform (Original Mix)
Porter Robinson - Goodbye To A World
In terms of how they handled pattern variation, or lack thereof. Your argument was that there were no real distinctions between vocal / non vocal sections in terms of patterning on the Winny Upload section, yet Nandemo Nai ya uses the same sliders and flows for vocal / non vocal sections all the time.
(See: 04:11:400 (2,3,4,5,1) - 04:24:614 (2,3,1) - 04:31:757 (2,3) - 02:21:936 (3,4,1) - 02:42:650 (1,1) - etc...) There is no concept of distinction between vocal / non-vocal expression because they aren't inherently different. I use the same curved slider for a vocal note, then again when there are no vocals. They used the same flow, there was no unique spacing shift, or any noticeable movement/rotational shift.
In terms of flow, you argued for there being some justification of when flow shifts occur. I don't believe maps need to change flow at specific points of time, and as a result, my maps often demonstrate flow shifts that occur outside of downbeats or noticeably strong/unique sounds. On Transform, you can see flow shifts taken place on places like:
(See: 01:47:726 (5) - 00:30:225 (4,1,2) - 00:32:036 (3,4,5) - 01:29:278 (2) - etc...)
You also argued for there being some sort of justification for clockwise / anti-clockwise / zigzag flow, and argued that there should be some musical justification for mapping these changes. I don't believe there absolutely needs to be musical justification, and I think variety as a reason should be enough. On Goodbye To A World, there are a lot of slider spam sections that use a variety of clockwise, anti clockwise, and zigzag flowing slider movements. My selection of pattern and design did not follow any predictable flow concept, ie some sections were clockwise, and switched to counterclockwise or zigzag in arbitrary sections.
(See: 03:15:027 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - 01:15:027 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - etc...)
My argument being that these maps have a lot of examples of places where I break, or don't even consider the issues you brought up in your mod post. Yet, these maps were clearly constructed with structure, aesthetic, flow, and movements in mind - a lot more structural, patternal, and aesthetical reasoning than Alien's metal sections - so there would have been even more reason to bring stuff like this up on those maps seeing as I wasn't even trying to create visual inconsistencies like alien, or aesthetically displeasing patterns. These maps demonstrate clear issues according to your mod on alien... Yet you nominated these maps.
All this text for such a simple map...
Anyway since you're taking mods yet again there's something I really wanted to see changed;
About the whole map thing:
you're all empty minded if you think that this map is new and controversial. Probably the first map with this concept to reach 8*, but not new. Anyway GL Monstrata, you should run a pool with all BNs with: []alien can get ranked []alien can't get ranked and stop the wasted time on this thread.
Anyway since you're taking mods yet again there's something I really wanted to see changed;
- 04:33:754 (1,1,1,1) - the "Stop" slider arts should be done accodingly to the actually letters if that's your intention.
If you're doing an "S" 04:33:754 (1) - and "P" 04:39:787 (1) - with the capital shape of the letters, making the "O" as a circle 04:37:763 (1) - and "T" with this curvature https://puu.sh/wStIz.jpg on the tail 04:35:730 (1) - is really off imo. Your map has a strong focus on the visual aspect, as this whole thread suggests, so why not improving this specific part?
having the "T" with a straight tail https://puu.sh/wStsd.jpg makes way more sense, and to avoid burai you just to need to lower a bit more the third red anchor point. About the "O" something like this https://puu.sh/wStBN.jpg makes more sense to me. (didn't match the y axis on the symmetry because it's just an ellipse design example, instead of the usual 3 point curvature design).
About the whole map thing:
you're all empty minded if you think that this map is new and controversial. Probably the first map with this concept to reach 8*, but not new. Anyway GL Monstrata, you should run a pool with all BNs with: []alien can get ranked []alien can't get ranked and stop the wasted time on this thread.
Topic Starter
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.
Just in case I wasn't clear enough with my mod: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.
If you still think your "T" shape is better I can see your reason, but saying the "O" shape looks like an "U" is pretty much lazy responding to my suggestion since I didn't give you an alternative example, but rather slider design suggestion. Take it if you want ,after all it's your map :3
SPOILER
you can disagree with my mod, but dont give me bs reasons xD
Topic Starter
The O design doesn't make more sense to me. I prefer my current one.
I.. actually agree with that... god I can't belive myself
uhh, an O isn't really an oval, your 'O' is kinda like a 0 / zero
the "O" is not an "O" 👀
I don't really know what's going on but I think these mods are ruining the map... The map fit the song better before and when it was loved. Now it seems that nitpicking preventing it from being ranked is reducing quality by forcing changes. Monstrata I hope you get this ranked but I don't think with these "mods" it can. I really used to enjoy the map though. Have what little kudosu I have to offer and stay strong (۶•̀ᴗ•́)۶
Liking the changes in the beginning.
Please DQ if not fixed ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ /jkezek wrote:
the "O" is not an "O" 👀
Maybe we could stop this pointless drama and move on, rank this already and forget?
Are you guys gonna continue to deny concepts which breaks "mapping purely for pp meta"?
As I said, right now where over 90% maps are just copy paste without actual quality - If map is right in term of ranking criteria and follow guidelines, in this case, Monstrata map is right in both, it is rankable.
At least Monstrata have idea for some creativity which goes out of this pointless mapping meta.
I would say - with all this complains, maybe you should start paying money to Monstrata for all this fixes which goes out of his initial concept.
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 -
you could use those flashes and make a extended one here: 02:36:797 - 02:50:353 -
Topic Starter
Kiai's cause a section of music to stand out over the other. I don't want any part of this map to stand out over the other, I think they are uniquely different and the metal section isn't "more musically important" than the pop section which is why there is no Kiai to give visual emphasis.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?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. (Won't be mentioning those individually since I don't think this is the appropriate spot for that.) 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.
Topic Starter
I think this is the error of the old mapping style. It cared too much about unnecessary consistencies, for example making sure flows were the same when comparing timestamps from literally 2 minutes apart (as you did earlier with those jumps). These are consistencies born from modders, not from players. A player will not look at a specific flow used 2 minutes ago and ask why it was used again here 2 minutes later, or why it wasn't. It's just too unnecessarily analytical and is born from a modders need to find consistencies or other issues that would not affect the map's enjoyability in the slightest.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.
In any case you have provided no time stamps, no examples of how to remedy the issue you proposed, nor have you replied to my comments so I cannot further this discussion. I'm not here to discuss mapping philosophies with you, this is not the thread for it. If you'd like to discuss my map, and reply to the things i mentioned above (in reference to your initial mod) then we can maybe go somewhere.
I have no intention of trying this "mapping aspect" you mentioned anyways because I think respecting consistency, just like respecting emphasis completely will just result in banal maps that no one will remember or play after 3 days
. You are constructing maps for a game, not for some educational purpose or institutional purpose. Keep things fun and make unique changes to the map. If you respect emphasis on every single jump sequence you make, they will not be interesting in the slightest and will just feel like any other pp farm map. If that is your objective, then that's fine, but please don't impose this onto maps that are clearly not trying to be your typical pp farm anime style maps xP.This discussion will go no where until you reply to what I've actually mentioned in my reply. Again, I'll stress that it's the map we are discussing, not your mapping philosophy and why you think I should change mine. My philosophy clearly has found more success.
Topic Starter
Also, adding to that, if beatmaps only "reflected" the song, then maps like Can Do, Nandemo nai ya, Transform, would not have existed. Mapping isn't limited to just reflecting music. It is also about interpreting music, creating variance, and most importantly, introducing gameplay elements to the music. You map a song because you want to create a fun gameplay experience for the player. If your objective is to construct a map that embodies the song perfectly, good for you, but you've lost the game element of mapping. In any case, my decisions for flow changes, spacings, patterns, are not created because I think using a triangular pattern will emphasize the music better. They are born from my decision that using this specific movement will play well, or that switching movement will allow specific patterns to be more interesting to play. Your argument is that I am not following consistency fully. My argument is that there is no need to follow consistency fully. If you look at my map, I already do so for a good 80-90% of it.
You told me before, that you wished you could map something that people will remember you by. Perhaps you should take from my perspective instead and not just produce maps that reflect the song, but rather maps that make an otherwise boring song interesting or fun. If you reflect a boring and unmemorable song, your map will be equally boring and unmemorable because that's what you've reflected.
You told me before, that you wished you could map something that people will remember you by. Perhaps you should take from my perspective instead and not just produce maps that reflect the song, but rather maps that make an otherwise boring song interesting or fun. If you reflect a boring and unmemorable song, your map will be equally boring and unmemorable because that's what you've reflected.
It was a generic statement regarding this entire beatmap. Examples regarding the beatmap were questioned to get a better understanding of yours about this map at previous posts, and you gave me your response. Also examples are examples, nothing more than that. I'm not questioning specific patterns but the whole structure idea implemented in this map.
Also in where did I mentioned this map to become a generic pp map? Please avoid making statements based on assumptions. In case such misunderstanding happened because I haven't gave you a solution for the issues I've mentioned, I'd like to talk again about one of the examples that was addressed previously.
03:15:390 (1,2) - 03:19:409 (1,2) - 03:23:442 (1,2) - 03:17:398 (1,2) - 03:21:425 (1,2) - 03:25:478 (1,2) - When I was questioning these 1/2 sliders, you were frustrated rather you should be using linears for vocals, and curves for non-vocals. Actually that could be one solution, but maybe a dramatic example. It was the slider shape, the visual aspects that came up in your mind. However giving similarities in similar music elements and differences in different music elements can literally be done in any aspect. Flows could be one. Or also spacing concepts. 03:17:398 (1,2) this for example shares a same visual concept according to visual spacings, but when it comes to actual distance snapping, this one is having a close spacing while others are having a distant spacing. Maybe you can differentiate expressions by applying this kind of spacing ideas. Setting specific suggestions aside, the only generic suggestion I can give is cto classify your pattern usage based on the "song". It may sound as a generic boring uninteresting concept at glance, but it is because making a good map without such trait is difficult. Just that.
Lastly, it's quite hard to understand that you aren't using mapping aspects. Maybe there was some misunderstandings, but there are no maps without a flow, and no map without a visuality. (Ugly visuals are still a visual.) It was this what I was meaning.
I'm seeing this discussion going in nowhere of a productive direction than I expected since not much agreements are being made. If you got your other BN ready, I'm suggesting to end our discussion and get yourself pushing this set further with the following BN. However if you still think my veto is unjustified, I'll keep have to voice my opinion.
Also in where did I mentioned this map to become a generic pp map? Please avoid making statements based on assumptions. In case such misunderstanding happened because I haven't gave you a solution for the issues I've mentioned, I'd like to talk again about one of the examples that was addressed previously.
03:15:390 (1,2) - 03:19:409 (1,2) - 03:23:442 (1,2) - 03:17:398 (1,2) - 03:21:425 (1,2) - 03:25:478 (1,2) - When I was questioning these 1/2 sliders, you were frustrated rather you should be using linears for vocals, and curves for non-vocals. Actually that could be one solution, but maybe a dramatic example. It was the slider shape, the visual aspects that came up in your mind. However giving similarities in similar music elements and differences in different music elements can literally be done in any aspect. Flows could be one. Or also spacing concepts. 03:17:398 (1,2) this for example shares a same visual concept according to visual spacings, but when it comes to actual distance snapping, this one is having a close spacing while others are having a distant spacing. Maybe you can differentiate expressions by applying this kind of spacing ideas. Setting specific suggestions aside, the only generic suggestion I can give is cto classify your pattern usage based on the "song". It may sound as a generic boring uninteresting concept at glance, but it is because making a good map without such trait is difficult. Just that.
Lastly, it's quite hard to understand that you aren't using mapping aspects. Maybe there was some misunderstandings, but there are no maps without a flow, and no map without a visuality. (Ugly visuals are still a visual.) It was this what I was meaning.
I'm seeing this discussion going in nowhere of a productive direction than I expected since not much agreements are being made. If you got your other BN ready, I'm suggesting to end our discussion and get yourself pushing this set further with the following BN. However if you still think my veto is unjustified, I'll keep have to voice my opinion.
Topic Starter
It's unnecessary to create distinctions between vocal / nonvocal sliders. They are following the exact same rhythm, mapped to 1/2 sliders. Listen to the main melody, it's what I'm following. Rather, creating a distinction distracts from the map itself because i'm clearly not using any mapping aspects to highlight the vocals on the section over the instruments, so recommending that I map the instrumental section differently from the vocal only creates an unnecessary design rift in the map. You are trying to assign some sort of specific mapping aspect to vocals, and a different mapping aspect to instruments, but this ends up causing the map to feel disparate like there are two different elements that keep switching one to another. Consider it as a whole section of music, not a collection of two or three slider patterns strung together. Your proposal damages the cohesion of the map and unnecessarily attempts to distinguish musical sections from vocals when they should be mapped in the same way since they are both following the main melody.
Since there is nothing to add, we can proceed with the rebubble.
Since there is nothing to add, we can proceed with the rebubble.
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.
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.
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.
I wonder how many maps it will take before QAT actually enforces any rules on BNG members.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.
Holy bible
Xexxar wrote:
Kurai wrote:
-snip for convenience and readability-I wonder how many maps it will take before QAT actually enforces any rules on BNG members.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.
Hello Xexxar! Just thought I'd check in and toss a non circlejerk opinion into the mix.
I believe it's completely justified that the map is bubbled seeing the reasoning that the veto on it was poorly done with not much reasoning beyond "eh i dont like it/its not playable". Monstrata has made an attempt (and quite well done!) to explain virtually every note within the beatmap at this point. Rank does not effect how good a mapper you are and aren't (You're 3k, We get it. It doesn't exactly make your opinion any more valid than anyone else's.). Kurai has simply reinstated a bubble which imo shouldn't have been popped in the first place. If you think the map sucks, that's great! We're all entitled to our own opinions, heck, it's why the modding system exists., If you have sat and modded the map and had it responded to and it ended in a way you didn't like; that's really sad for you but unfortunately it is ultimately the mappers decisions how they make their map.
If you can find anything wrong with this map beyond "DAE NOT LIKE ALIEN?" point it out here. I'm sure the BNG would take the steps necessary to make Monstrata change anything that is fundamentally flawed, however, at this point in time; from the perspective of many, it seems the map is ready for a bubble and possibly the qualified section.
Please be civil in this thread (However difficult it may be for you :s), calling out Kurai because he's made a decision you do not like and feel breaks the rules is NOT the type of stuff that is honestly suitable in a thread being this heavily monitored. Passive aggressiveness against people is bad.
--
That bit of the comment done! Gratz on the bubble. I look forward to seeing the development of this map (good song :thumbsup:), your recent changes have made the map better in my opinion. Best of luck moving forward Monstrata!
Why are you telling me this? I'm simply expressing my opinion that Kurai's actions here are in violation of BNG rules and am wondering when something will be done about it. Kurai is not re-instilling a bubble, he is stating that he is qualified to judge and nominate this map because the previous bubble was veto'd (over subjective issues, which is allowed).
Thanks for the non-circlejerk opinion dude!
Thanks for the non-circlejerk opinion dude!
Xexxar wrote:
Why are you telling me this? I'm simply expressing my opinion that Kurai's actions here are in violation of BNG rules and am wondering when something will be done about it. Kurai is not re-instilling a bubble, he is stating that he is qualified to judge and nominate this map because the previous bubble was veto'd (over subjective issues, which is allowed).
Thanks for the non-circlejerk opinion dude!
No Xexxar, you have to understand those rules only apply when disqualifying The Empress or preventing Gone with the Blast from qualifying. Those maps clearly made the mistake of not being A-L-I-E-N and therefore don't deserve to be nominated to rank status (or trying that for 4 times now).
Topic Starter
Rank is quite irrelevant when you are proficient in modding and mapping. If I nominated 7-8 star maps no one would question me. And even if someone did, there's nothing the staff can do because they can't determine that I'm unable to judge these maps.
Monstrata wrote:
Rank is quite irrelevant when you are proficient in modding and mapping. If I nominated 7-8 star maps no one would question me. And even if someone did, there's nothing the staff can do because they can't determine that I'm unable to judge these maps.
Weird.
Please explain to me then how this:
was allowed to happen. Apparently there is something that staff or QAT or some people can do. The question is if it's because of modding skill or if it's just having the QAT at your mercy.
Yes but Monstrata you have much more experience as a nominator under 2017 mapping standards. The same cannot be said about Kurai.Monstrata wrote:
Rank is quite irrelevant when you are proficient in modding and mapping. If I nominated 7-8 star maps no one would question me. And even if someone did, there's nothing the staff can do because they can't determine that I'm unable to judge these maps.
How good you can judge a map isn't determined by the rank but amount of experience you have over the time. Someone which is around for five years does know more at some point than someone for two years although they have the same (skill) rank.
the fact kurai went inactive (and came back) doesn't mean he lost all of his mapping/modding abilities lol
there's a few cases of mappers who can map hard difficulties while not being able to play them so why that wouldn't be the same for modders?
not being able to play a map doesn't mean you can't judge it properly. you can be experimented with the editor more than the actual game itself.
there's a few cases of mappers who can map hard difficulties while not being able to play them so why that wouldn't be the same for modders?
not being able to play a map doesn't mean you can't judge it properly. you can be experimented with the editor more than the actual game itself.
If you have concerns about me being able to judge this map properly, I invite you to file a complaint to the QAT. This thread is not the place where you should be doing that as it is going to bring unwanted negativity to the debate once again.
Being able to play the map in its entirety is, I believe, not a factor to judge a map properly; it is obviously an asset but in no case a requirement. As long as I understand the logic behind the patterns, I believe I am more than qualified to nominate this beatmap. This is also why the modal "may" has been used in the BNG rule you keep telling everyone I broke. The use of this modal clearly means that being a skilled player is not only what it takes to be able to judge a map.
I don't understand you at all. I am trying to push this map forward, doing what no one else really wants to do because no one likes doing the dirty job, yet you still find something to complain about? You are slowing down the qualifying process of this map by doing that. If any action has to be taken for my doings, a QAT will contact me and I will be glad to explain to them why I deemed myself qualified to bubble this map (don't worry, the QAT are well aware that I bubbled it).
In conclusion: if you have any concern about this map being bubbled, I invite you to point out the issues proving it unworthy of receiving a bubble. Anything else is irrelevent to the topic.
Being able to play the map in its entirety is, I believe, not a factor to judge a map properly; it is obviously an asset but in no case a requirement. As long as I understand the logic behind the patterns, I believe I am more than qualified to nominate this beatmap. This is also why the modal "may" has been used in the BNG rule you keep telling everyone I broke. The use of this modal clearly means that being a skilled player is not only what it takes to be able to judge a map.
I don't understand you at all. I am trying to push this map forward, doing what no one else really wants to do because no one likes doing the dirty job, yet you still find something to complain about? You are slowing down the qualifying process of this map by doing that. If any action has to be taken for my doings, a QAT will contact me and I will be glad to explain to them why I deemed myself qualified to bubble this map (don't worry, the QAT are well aware that I bubbled it).
In conclusion: if you have any concern about this map being bubbled, I invite you to point out the issues proving it unworthy of receiving a bubble. Anything else is irrelevent to the topic.
almost there
Edit: This map has been tested and modded a lot, so I don't think kurai's icon here is wrong, even if he can't judge the map properly, there are 67 pages of feedback...
Edit: This map has been tested and modded a lot, so I don't think kurai's icon here is wrong, even if he can't judge the map properly, there are 67 pages of feedback...
nat-su fastNatsu wrote:
almost there
Actually, as you can see in the screenshot above, the modal is must not/are not allowed. It's not a guideline apparently.Kurai wrote:
As long as I understand the logic behind the patterns, I believe I am more than qualified to nominate this beatmap. This is also why the modal "may" has been used in the BNG rule you keep telling everyone I broke.
Yuutai wrote:
Actually, as you can see in the screenshot above, the modal is must not/are not allowed. It's not a guideline apparently.Kurai wrote:
As long as I understand the logic behind the patterns, I believe I am more than qualified to nominate this beatmap. This is also why the modal "may" has been used in the BNG rule you keep telling everyone I broke.
I have no idea where you got your screenshot from.
Kurai wrote:
I have no idea where you got your screenshot from.
My screenshot comes from here. t/470459/start=345
And even if we use yours - the defining modal here is "Do not", not "may". By that logic as long as nobody complained we wouldn't have had any problems ranking Bloodthirsty Nightmare/The Empress in the first place.
"Do not" refers to nominating a map when you are unable to judge it.Yuutai wrote:
Kurai wrote:
I have no idea where you got your screenshot from.
My screenshot comes from here. t/470459/start=345
And even if we use yours - the defining modal here is "Do not", not "may". By that logic as long as nobody complained we wouldn't have had any problems ranking Bloodthirsty Nightmare/The Empress in the first place.
"May" refers to the idea of considering a nominator unable to judge a 8* map when they are 60k.
Which means that I am not necessarily deemed unable to judge a 8* map if I am 60k.
Anyway this conversation is irrelevent and is not contributing in any way in getting this ranked.
How many BNs have veto'd this map so far? Just an innocent question
After loved -->Kisses wrote:
How many BNs have veto'd this map so far? Just an innocent question
Nao bubbles map
Monstrata self pops for updates
I bubble map (I could have qualified but i figured rebubbling was the safer option given the maps controversy)
Kagetsu vetos my bubble
After discussion with Monstrata, Kagetsu rescinds his veto.
I rebubble map
Sonnyc vetos my bubble
Kurai bubbles map
y is a single map triggering so many ppl
its just a circle clicking game lmao
its just a circle clicking game lmao
Please do not DQ this, let this map be ranked already so it will force some ways to let other creative maps get ranked.
Like really, for all god and evil souls - just get some common sense and stop being drama queens (and kings).
Good luck Monstrata!
/me going back to lurk around
Like really, for all god and evil souls - just get some common sense and stop being drama queens (and kings).
For next DQ, If someone point out "I don't like this object, please elaborate", I shall find explanation in this topic and link it to prove how artificial and hostile this DQ are now. Mark my words!
Good luck Monstrata!
/me going back to lurk around
agreeSnowNiNo_ wrote:
y is a single map triggering so many ppl
its just a circle clicking game lmao
Tbh I respect the fact that Monstrata has taken a different approach to getting this map ranked. Back in the days, it seemed like you were just kind of the dick you wanted to be, which goes something along the lines of "Since I am Monstrata I can rank whatever I want" kind of mentality. The reason why I really got irritated by your behaviour in the past was due to the fact that you wanted to rank something for the point of "showing how much potential power you could have" and also the fact that you wanted to make the highest * map this specific map. I guess I didn't have too great of an issue with the fact that it would've been the highest * rank but your approach to it was just garbage.
Personally, I still don't think it should be ranked, but yeah. I don't know what it is that makes me feel so against the map, maybe the "ugliness" in itself or just the fact that it has a bunch of RNG jumps that no one besides AUTO will hit. Just rambling.
Personally, I still don't think it should be ranked, but yeah. I don't know what it is that makes me feel so against the map, maybe the "ugliness" in itself or just the fact that it has a bunch of RNG jumps that no one besides AUTO will hit. Just rambling.
The patterns aren't much different from the trash PP farm maps you see getting ranked every week, they're just wider. If anything they flow even better than those "perfectly fine" maps.filsdelmao wrote:
Personally, I still don't think it should be ranked, but yeah. I don't know what it is that makes me feel so against the map, maybe the "ugliness" in itself or just the fact that it has a bunch of RNG jumps that no one besides AUTO will hit. Just rambling.
Maybe the flow is "fine" if that is what you truly consider to be fine. I'd love to see you attempt to hit those, and if you do, kudos to you.Kynan wrote:
The patterns aren't much different from the trash PP farm maps you see getting ranked every week, they're just wider. If anything they flow even better than those "perfectly fine" maps.filsdelmao wrote:
Personally, I still don't think it should be ranked, but yeah. I don't know what it is that makes me feel so against the map, maybe the "ugliness" in itself or just the fact that it has a bunch of RNG jumps that no one besides AUTO will hit. Just rambling.
If the patterns are similar to trash maps then does that make this a trash map? :thinking:Kynan wrote:
The patterns aren't much different from the trash PP farm maps you see getting ranked every week
You're right. That is indeed contradictory.Kisses wrote:
If the patterns are similar to trash maps then does that make this a trash map? :thinking:Kynan wrote:
The patterns aren't much different from the trash PP farm maps you see getting ranked every week
body
bro ur like 100k and ur judging a map that's 8.5 stars with no mapping experience l ooolbody wrote:
Huh, that word is not what I would describe this map as at all. If this is creative then I'm actually the coolest person on Earth[Taiga] wrote:
creative
How about we stop talking about if someone capable of judging a map or not and instead focus on doing constructive criticism? I'd recommend Monstrata to ask for a cleaning session on this thread because a lot of the stuff being said here is really useless and only brings up drama and flame.
hey guys remember when xexxar tried to get me striked 3 different times for after rain
who thinks he'll do it again here raise your hand!!!
who thinks he'll do it again here raise your hand!!!
How did I expect someone with a nickname like that to get my point, I wonder...filsdelmao wrote:
You're right. That is indeed contradictory.Kisses wrote:
If the patterns are similar to trash maps then does that make this a trash map? :thinking:
This map was created to reflect the music. Whether it does that or not, I can't say since i'm not a very good mapper.
What I can add to this conversation is that rankable, doesn't mean playable. If the map reflects the song well, in a way which doesn't break the ranking criteria, it technically deserves to be ranked.
I personally don't want this ranked, since to the player majority, this is the flagship for allowing a "messy" style of mapping to take over. This is probably scare mongering, since all of monstrata's old controversial mapsets have not inspired a wash of quality drop in ranked.
However it's the message which matters here. Objectively it should be ok to rank with no repercussions, but it sends the message to potential mappers "this is ok", even if this map used it's ugliness effectively.
This is my opinion to this whole thing.
What I can add to this conversation is that rankable, doesn't mean playable. If the map reflects the song well, in a way which doesn't break the ranking criteria, it technically deserves to be ranked.
I personally don't want this ranked, since to the player majority, this is the flagship for allowing a "messy" style of mapping to take over. This is probably scare mongering, since all of monstrata's old controversial mapsets have not inspired a wash of quality drop in ranked.
However it's the message which matters here. Objectively it should be ok to rank with no repercussions, but it sends the message to potential mappers "this is ok", even if this map used it's ugliness effectively.
This is my opinion to this whole thing.
body
You were contradicting yourself in the statement of yours and instead of clearing it up you decide to insult me and my name. Tough guy. But since you seem so concerned about your so called "point", go ahead and explain it in further context as to why this song has a better flow than any of those "PP farm maps" that you... didn't refer to?Kynan wrote:
How did I expect someone with a nickname like that to get my point, I wonder...filsdelmao wrote:
You're right. That is indeed contradictory.
Thanks in advance Kynan.
A mapping conversation with players doesn't work out, since they value different things.
Last warning. If you have nothing constructive or relevant to contribute to this discussion, post nothing, or risk a very hefty silence and possible restriction.
We've removed well over fifty posts from this thread at this point.
We've removed well over fifty posts from this thread at this point.
My point is extremely simple to get though : the jumps aren't any more complicated than the ones you see getting ranked every fucking day. They are just harder to hit because they are wider. End of my point. Got it now ?filsdelmao wrote:
You were contradicting yourself in the statement of yours and instead of clearing it up you decide to insult me and my name. Tough guy. But since you seem so concerned about your so called "point", go ahead and explain it in further context as to why this song has a better flow than any of those "PP farm maps" that you... didn't refer to?
Thanks in advance Kynan.
it doesnt apply for quali right
finally
OH BOY
white discord RRREEEEEEEEEEE
winny upload stoppddddddddddddddd