Smokeman wrote:

some small things i noticed

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

this is a meme-free zone now

E n d wrote:

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

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

Athrun wrote:

E n d wrote:

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

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

Teach me how to make a slow interlude 8*

:thinking:

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

Sonnyc wrote:

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

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

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

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

Some fragmentary examples again:

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

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

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

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

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

Monstrata wrote:

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

current stop

possible stop

ezek wrote:

the "O" is not an "O" 👀

MrMenda wrote:

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

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

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

Sonnyc wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kurai wrote:

Alo l'espace

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

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

Xexxar wrote:

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

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

Xexxar wrote:

Kurai wrote:

-snip for convenience and readability-

Xexxar wrote:

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

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

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

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!

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.

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.

Natsu wrote:

almost there

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:

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.

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:

I have no idea where you got your screenshot from.

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.

Kisses wrote:

How many BNs have veto'd this map so far? Just an innocent question

SnowNiNo_ wrote:

y is a single map triggering so many ppl
its just a circle clicking game lmao

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.

Kynan wrote:

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.

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.

Kynan wrote:

The patterns aren't much different from the trash PP farm maps you see getting ranked every week

Kisses wrote:

Kynan wrote:

The patterns aren't much different from the trash PP farm maps you see getting ranked every week

If the patterns are similar to trash maps then does that make this a trash map? :thinking:

[Taiga] wrote:

creative

body wrote:

[Taiga] wrote:

creative

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

filsdelmao wrote:

Kisses wrote:

If the patterns are similar to trash maps then does that make this a trash map? :thinking:

You're right. That is indeed contradictory.

fieryrage wrote:

bro ur like 100k and ur judging a map that's 8.5 stars with no mapping experience l oool

Kynan wrote:

filsdelmao wrote:

You're right. That is indeed contradictory.

How did I expect someone with a nickname like that to get my point, I wonder...

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.

squirrelpascals wrote:

The person who qualified uses light-themed discord, i demand an immediate dq

/s

Naotoshi wrote:

it doesnt apply for quali right

AyanokoRin wrote:

wait a sec isn't 01:31:862 (3) offscreen since that square is supposedly 4:3 play area