cool map
show more
: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
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
lets do this thingy
gather around for this hell of a trip to dramaland
winny status: stopped
The person who qualified uses light-themed discord, i demand an immediate dq
/s
/s
that was actually hobbes screenshot not me, i'm respectable...
squirrelpascals wrote:
The person who qualified uses light-themed discord, i demand an immediate dq/s
light theme discord should be punishable by death
here we go
this is actually fun now good job monstrata proud of u
GOOO
O BOI HERE COMES THE DRAMA
