Voli wrote:

this is a bubble

Kurai wrote:

Qualified!

a q p w wrote:

https://osu.ppy.sh/forum/p/5447585

been a year but still haven't checked the lyrics zzz

00:44:279 -

ShogunMoon wrote:

oooooo finally!~

gratz!~

M a r v o l l o wrote:

Grats~

Asserin wrote:

a q p w wrote:

https://osu.ppy.sh/forum/p/5447585

been a year but still haven't checked the lyrics zzz

00:44:279 -

Kanari checked it and she said its okey so its should be okey.

Asserin wrote:

a q p w wrote:

https://osu.ppy.sh/forum/p/5447585

been a year but still haven't checked the lyrics zzz

00:44:279 -

Kanari checked it and she said its okey so its should be okey.

Chalwa wrote:

Kuźwa 2x Chalwa w qualified róbcie screeny. Gratki <3

1. 01:23:736 - lack of contrast by not changing the SV even tho the song calms down (also 01:26:263 (6,7,8,9,10,1) - is too dense for an outro tbh)
   The SB even keeps flashing around for some reason lmao
2. 01:08:410 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - pretty sure that this pattern choice is the worst you could have done among a map using back and forth movements everywhere else.
   This part is surely special, but you just made it stand out the other way around
3. 00:03:192 - 00:13:627 - this is the intro, but you somehow decided to divide it in two parts and put one giant slider in one of them and do a completely different and more intense rhythm in t he other half. I would at least expect long sliders on vocals as your first slider indicates: 00:08:410 - 00:10:040 - (should be a slider); 00:10:366 - circle ; 00:10:692 - another long slider too.
   That way it would make sense to keep the first slider, but you decided to slap together two different things which imo don't fit at all
4. 00:25:855 (6,7,8,9,1) - during calm parts you have these big differences in rhythm, where the player hits a constant 1/2 rhythm for a second, then the next one is holding a slider for another one. It's like taking a sauna and jumping into a frozen lake once you go out lmao
5. 00:34:497 - notice how there is a noticeable increase in intensity of the song here, but you just repeat the same identical pattern you did from 00:29:279 - (again lack of contrast or song expression, which one you prefer)
6. 00:39:632 (5) - ghost triple I am not fond of at all
7. 00:44:931 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - seeing this being part of the calm part of the song doesn't makes it right either imo. You use almost the same spacing here, as well as clickable objects (you keep the 1/2 constant rhythm, while more sliders would have been better for contrast)
   I mean, alright, that's the chorus we're talking about but THAT's the point: it's the chorus, a soft background addition during a calm part, yet you map it as spacing equal to 00:39:714 (1,2,3,4,1) - if not greater than that
8. 00:55:366 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3) - again, pretty much subjective perhaps, but you're adding a lot of contrast on nothing I can relate to in the music:
   00:55:366 (1,2,3,4) - this is perfectly fine and I like it, but that also is establishing a rule for this section, which is the constant 1/1 (both spacing and rhythm) but then we encounter 00:56:670 (1) - which is probably x2 faster than that, even tho the song is the same
9. 01:20:475 (2) - I checked many times and I still wonder why just this slider is 3/4 among the combo that uses identical lyrics 01:20:149 (1,2,3) - ?.?
   Hint: I was expecting them to be all 1/2 sliders (or either 3/4, up to you)

1. 00:04:986 (4,1) - can be reduced, the difference between SV/DS here is huge no matter how you look at it
2. 00:58:627 (3,4) - having such uncomfortable rhythms is not what I would do but that's subjective I guess. It's just a sudden peak in reading and rhythm which is not even introduced
3. 00:20:149 (1,2,3,4) - vs 00:14:931 (1,2,3,4) - choose one please. Sliders work better tbh
4. 00:22:594 (5,1,2) - yea... one of those reading challenges out of nowhere. When it comes to lower diffs I like to be edgy too, but the way you are managing spacing is just too inconsistent to make it a fixed rule, so the player doesn't have any clues on how to play this, besides the fast approach circle.
   For what I know, 00:23:083 (2,3) - this can be the same as 00:22:594 (5,1) - tbh
5. 00:34:497 - I mean... it IS cool as an effect, but not on this diff LOL. Seeing you followed vocals so far it is totally out of place to follow... whatever you follow here (I guess it's piano)
6. 00:42:975 (1,2,3,4,5,1,2) - why do I feel like you did the opposite of what the song does. It is calming down, not increasing in intensity LOL
7. 00:50:149 (1,2,3,4,5) - also strange spacing increase out of nowhere within this section where everything was spaced as x1.75 (see: 00:44:931 (1,2,3,4) - 00:47:540 (1,2,3,4) - ) // 00:52:757 (1,2,3,4,5) - obviously the same since well... it doesn't change here either. Even if it is somewhat consistent, it doesn't mean it's warranted imo
8. 01:19:823 (4,1) - ugly overlap you could have avoided since it's the only one in the entire map
9. 01:24:062 (1,2,3) - maybe improve contrast by using sliders instead

MrSergio wrote:

Sergio's opinion

Top diff:

1. 01:23:736 - nice lack of contrast by not changing the SV even tho the song calms down (also 01:26:263 (6,7,8,9,10,1) - is too dense for an outro tbh)
   The SB even keeps flashing around for some reason lmao
2. 01:08:410 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - pretty sure that this pattern choice is the worst you could have done among a map using back and forth movements everywhere else.
   This part is surely special, but you just made it stand out the other way around
3. 00:03:192 - 00:13:627 - this is the intro, but you somehow decided to divide it in two parts and put one giant slider in one of them and do a completely different and more intense rhythm in t he other half. I would at least expect long sliders on vocals as your first slider indicates: 00:08:410 - 00:10:040 - (should be a slider); 00:10:366 - circle ; 00:10:692 - another long slider too.
   That way it would make sense to keep the first slider, but you decided to slap together two different things which imo don't fit at all
4. 00:25:855 (6,7,8,9,1) - during calm parts you have these big differences in rhythm, where the player hits a constant 1/2 rhythm for a second, then the next one is holding a slider for another one. It's like taking a sauna and jumping into a frozen lake once you go out lmao
5. 00:34:497 - notice how there is a noticeable increase in intensity of the song here, but you just repeat the same identical pattern you did from 00:29:279 - (again lack of contrast or song expression, which one you prefer)
6. 00:39:632 (5) - ghost triple I am not fond of at all
7. 00:44:931 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - seeing this being part of the calm part of the song doesn't makes it right either imo. You use almost the same spacing here, as well as clickable objects (you keep the 1/2 constant rhythm, while more sliders would have been better for contrast)
   I mean, alright, that's the chorus we're talking about but THAT's the point: it's the chorus, a soft background addition during a calm part, yet you map it as spacing equal to 00:39:714 (1,2,3,4,1) - if not greater than that
8. 00:55:366 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3) - again, pretty much subjective perhaps, but you're adding a lot of contrast on nothing I can relate to in the music:
   00:55:366 (1,2,3,4) - this is perfectly fine and I like it, but that also is establishing a rule for this section, which is the constant 1/1 (both spacing and rhythm) but then we encounter 00:56:670 (1) - which is probably x2 faster than that, even tho the song is the same
9. 01:20:475 (2) - I checked many times and I still wonder why just this slider is 3/4 among the combo that uses identical lyrics 01:20:149 (1,2,3) - ?.?
   Hint: I was expecting them to be all 1/2 sliders (or either 3/4, up to you)

Hard:

1. 00:04:986 (4,1) - can be reduced, the difference between SV/DS here is huge no matter how you look at it
2. 00:58:627 (3,4) - having such uncomfortable rhythms is not what I would do but that's subjective I guess. It's just a sudden peak in reading and rhythm which is not even introduced
3. 00:20:149 (1,2,3,4) - vs 00:14:931 (1,2,3,4) - choose one please. Sliders work better tbh
4. 00:22:594 (5,1,2) - yea... one of those reading challenges out of nowhere. When it comes to lower diffs I like to be edgy too, but the way you are managing spacing is just too inconsistent to make it a fixed rule, so the player doesn't have any clues on how to play this, besides the fast approach circle.
   For what I know, 00:23:083 (2,3) - this can be the same as 00:22:594 (5,1) - tbh
5. 00:34:497 - I mean... it IS cool as an effect, but not on this diff LOL. Seeing you followed vocals so far it is totally out of place to follow... whatever you follow here (I guess it's piano)
6. 00:42:975 (1,2,3,4,5,1,2) - why do I feel like you did the opposite of what the song does. It is calming down, not increasing in intensity LOL
7. 00:50:149 (1,2,3,4,5) - also strange spacing increase out of nowhere within this section where everything was spaced as x1.75 (see: 00:44:931 (1,2,3,4) - 00:47:540 (1,2,3,4) - ) // 00:52:757 (1,2,3,4,5) - obviously the same since well... it doesn't change here either. Even if it is somewhat consistent, it doesn't mean it's warranted imo
8. 01:19:823 (4,1) - ugly overlap you could have avoided since it's the only one in the entire map
9. 01:24:062 (1,2,3) - maybe improve contrast by using sliders instead

To confirm your lack of contrast in general: your Advanced diff has no SV change in the least lol
SV is not the only mean to improve contrast: spacing usage, pattern usage, rhythm usage... it's up to you.

Sorry to say this, but this doesn't look near ranked status at all in my eyes

MrSergio wrote:

if you could at least share your opinion with everyone it would be nice to actually see what you meant.
I gave reasons, which are mainly related to the song. It's not just "this doesn't make sense" / period

Trust me that I am not being egoistic or anything here, I'm trying to actually make you realize what doesn't work that well in my eyes.
Also, this map is in qualified, so you should expect people commenting on your map exactly during this period which puts more attention on it.

If you tell me "what I say makes sense" and reply with "you should ask yourself why this person made this like this" that's just saying "it's my style" without any deeper meaning to it.
Since you don't seem to have that big of a knowledge yet (judging maps/kudosu you have) I wouldn't really take the "it's my style" excuse that easily anyway.


If I'm really being egoistic about the mod feel free to reply to it and show me what you say is true, instead of just calling it out as an "egoistic mod" please =w=

Pachiru wrote:

i really like your profile picture asserin

MrSergio wrote:

nice lack of contrast by not changing the SV even tho the song calms down

Naotoshi wrote:

remind asserin that he should respond to mods properly too =D

Naotoshi wrote:

obviously not, it's qualified. why would you change things? xP

just write a response when you get time, makes it easier for other people who may have concerns to see what kind of reasoning you used.

MrSergio wrote:

Top diff:

1. 01:23:736 - lack of contrast by not changing the SV even tho the song calms down The background melody does not change here 01:23:736 - . This is a basic passage in a song which I want to emphasize doing gap here 01:24:388 - . I signaled it with NC too. (also 01:26:263 (6,7,8,9,10,1) - is too dense for an outro tbh) I don't really see a problem with danse outro if snapping and SV are reduced correctly.
   The SB even keeps flashing around for some reason lmao Nobody said SB can't flashing after kiai. If someone play with SB, this person will see where is end of the map becouse there is used pulse 01:26:670 - and I emphasized it clearly with a bit higher snap and NC .
2. 01:08:410 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - pretty sure that this pattern choice is the worst you could have done among a map using back and forth movements everywhere else. Hmm I don't know at all where is problem here. Generally most of people dont use simple patterns like that and thats truth but nobody said its bad idea or its bad to play. Most of old players like patterns like that becouse it is similar with patterns from old maps. Soo if i don't see problem with this place maybe I will say why I did it like that. Location of 01:08:410 (1) - this circle is rather obvious so i will skip it. 01:08:410 (1,2,3) - This snapping was intended to produce/create (I don't know which word pass better) an effect of a brief gap, so that vocal would be in line with melody in the background becouse it is doable to combine/mix vocal with rhythm correctly but it take a lot of time. 01:08:736 (3,4) - spanning here follows something like https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/9185925 but it won't becouse it looks weird and unsightly. Thats why i reduced DS here and make it like mirror reflection/loop.
   This part is surely special, but you just made it stand out the other way around In my opinion it is one of best way to keep it simple and funny to play
3. 00:03:192 - 00:13:627 - this is the intro, but you somehow decided to divide it in two parts and put one giant slider in one of them and do a completely different and more intense rhythm in t he other half. I would at least expect long sliders on vocals as your first slider indicates: 00:08:410 - 00:10:040 - (should be a slider); 00:10:366 - circle ; 00:10:692 - another long slider too.
   That way it would make sense to keep the first slider, but you decided to slap together two different things which imo don't fit at all As I wrote above it is possible to combine/mix vocal with rhythm correctly. Otherwise I use changed rhythm before passage in a song and it always works well.
4. 00:25:855 (6,7,8,9,1) - during calm parts you have these big differences in rhythm, where the player hits a constant 1/2 rhythm for a second, then the next one is holding a slider for another one. Soo people can't click faster than 1/2 per secound? I think it is possible and more interesing than smapping 1/2 notes. It's like taking a sauna and jumping into a frozen lake once you go out lmao. Interesting saying. Didn't heard it yet.
5. 00:34:497 - notice how there is a noticeable increase in intensity of the song here, but you just repeat the same identical pattern you did from 00:29:279 - (again lack of contrast or song expression, which one you prefer) I will continue it later
6. 00:39:632 (5) - ghost triple I am not fond of at all
7. 00:44:931 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - seeing this being part of the calm part of the song doesn't makes it right either imo. You use almost the same spacing here, as well as clickable objects (you keep the 1/2 constant rhythm, while more sliders would have been better for contrast)
   I mean, alright, that's the chorus we're talking about but THAT's the point: it's the chorus, a soft background addition during a calm part, yet you map it as spacing equal to 00:39:714 (1,2,3,4,1) - if not greater than that
8. 00:55:366 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3) - again, pretty much subjective perhaps, but you're adding a lot of contrast on nothing I can relate to in the music:
   00:55:366 (1,2,3,4) - this is perfectly fine and I like it, but that also is establishing a rule for this section, which is the constant 1/1 (both spacing and rhythm) but then we encounter 00:56:670 (1) - which is probably x2 faster than that, even tho the song is the same
9. 01:20:475 (2) - I checked many times and I still wonder why just this slider is 3/4 among the combo that uses identical lyrics 01:20:149 (1,2,3) - ?.?
   Hint: I was expecting them to be all 1/2 sliders (or either 3/4, up to you)

To confirm your lack of contrast in general: your Advanced diff has no SV change in the least lol
SV is not the only mean to improve contrast: spacing usage, pattern usage, rhythm usage... it's up to you.

Sorry to say this, but this doesn't look near ranked status at all in my eyes

Asserin wrote:

MrSergio wrote:

Top diff:

1. 01:23:736 - lack of contrast by not changing the SV even tho the song calms down The background melody does not change here 01:23:736 - . This is a basic passage in a song which I want to emphasize doing gap here 01:24:388 - . I signaled it with NC too. (also 01:26:263 (6,7,8,9,10,1) - is too dense for an outro tbh) I don't really see a problem with danse outro if snapping and SV are reduced correctly.
   The SB even keeps flashing around for some reason lmao Nobody said SB can't flashing after kiai. If someone play with SB, this person will see where is end of the map becouse there is used pulse 01:26:670 - and I emphasized it clearly with a bit higher snap and NC .
   
   So in the end... we consider only part of the music (the melody) and not the entire song which clearly calms down... am I right? =w= (just making sure I am not misreading this)
   
2. 01:08:410 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - pretty sure that this pattern choice is the worst you could have done among a map using back and forth movements everywhere else. Hmm I don't know at all where is problem here. Generally most of people dont use simple patterns like that and thats truth but nobody said its bad idea or its bad to play. Most of old players like patterns like that becouse it is similar with patterns from old maps. Soo if i don't see problem with this place maybe I will say why I did it like that. Location of 01:08:410 (1) - this circle is rather obvious so i will skip it. 01:08:410 (1,2,3) - This snapping was intended to produce/create (I don't know which word pass better) an effect of a brief gap, so that vocal would be in line with melody in the background becouse it is doable to combine/mix vocal with rhythm correctly but it take a lot of time. 01:08:736 (3,4) - spanning here follows something like https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/9185925 but it won't becouse it looks weird and unsightly. Thats why i reduced DS here and make it like mirror reflection/loop.
   
   The problem is inconsistency. Your whole map has back and forth movements (01:05:801 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5) - 01:11:018 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5) - and so on) yet the most intense pattern (the one I linked for this point) uses a totally different and not related concept for it. While I could agree that having such a big difference makes it stand out, I can't really agree with the choice itself.
   Also, who cares about old/new players??? The point is that it's inconsistent with the rest, not what people likes or not.
   Also, I didn't need you to explain object per object what you did, but the reason behind them (which you didn't give in the end since "old players like this stuff"). That last screen sucks anyway and it doesn't change a thing lmao
   
   This part is surely special, but you just made it stand out the other way around In my opinion it is one of best way to keep it simple and funny to play
   
   Keeping it simple is fine and I'm all for it. Doing it as if this pattern only was part of another map is not what I would expect tho. Try using a back and forth movement too, but slightly different, idk...
   
3. 00:03:192 - 00:13:627 - this is the intro, but you somehow decided to divide it in two parts and put one giant slider in one of them and do a completely different and more intense rhythm in t he other half. I would at least expect long sliders on vocals as your first slider indicates: 00:08:410 - 00:10:040 - (should be a slider); 00:10:366 - circle ; 00:10:692 - another long slider too.
   That way it would make sense to keep the first slider, but you decided to slap together two different things which imo don't fit at all As I wrote above it is possible to combine/mix vocal with rhythm correctly. Otherwise I use changed rhythm before passage in a song and it always works well.
   
   it's about consistency, but I guess we talked already above about this
   
4. 00:25:855 (6,7,8,9,1) - during calm parts you have these big differences in rhythm, where the player hits a constant 1/2 rhythm for a second, then the next one is holding a slider for another one. Soo people can't click faster than 1/2 per secound? I think it is possible and more interesing than smapping 1/2 notes. It's like taking a sauna and jumping into a frozen lake once you go out lmao. Interesting saying. Didn't heard it yet.
   
   it's not a saying, it was just a metaphor to say that "you quickly switch from intense rhythms to really calm rhythms"
   In substance: consistency again
   
5. 00:34:497 - notice how there is a noticeable increase in intensity of the song here, but you just repeat the same identical pattern you did from 00:29:279 - (again lack of contrast or song expression, which one you prefer) I will continue it later
6. 00:39:632 (5) - ghost triple I am not fond of at all
7. 00:44:931 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - seeing this being part of the calm part of the song doesn't makes it right either imo. You use almost the same spacing here, as well as clickable objects (you keep the 1/2 constant rhythm, while more sliders would have been better for contrast)
   I mean, alright, that's the chorus we're talking about but THAT's the point: it's the chorus, a soft background addition during a calm part, yet you map it as spacing equal to 00:39:714 (1,2,3,4,1) - if not greater than that
8. 00:55:366 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3) - again, pretty much subjective perhaps, but you're adding a lot of contrast on nothing I can relate to in the music:
   00:55:366 (1,2,3,4) - this is perfectly fine and I like it, but that also is establishing a rule for this section, which is the constant 1/1 (both spacing and rhythm) but then we encounter 00:56:670 (1) - which is probably x2 faster than that, even tho the song is the same
9. 01:20:475 (2) - I checked many times and I still wonder why just this slider is 3/4 among the combo that uses identical lyrics 01:20:149 (1,2,3) - ?.?
   Hint: I was expecting them to be all 1/2 sliders (or either 3/4, up to you)

To confirm your lack of contrast in general: your Advanced diff has no SV change in the least lol
SV is not the only mean to improve contrast: spacing usage, pattern usage, rhythm usage... it's up to you.

Sorry to say this, but this doesn't look near ranked status at all in my eyes