Moh_Magdy wrote:

Hi there o/
I'm a new mapper from your queue, I hope my mod helps Yeah! Thank you!

Beginner:

00:27:893 (1) - I think this should be a 1 beat slider with a reverse Consider this is a Beginner diff, it might not be a good idea to map all the beats out.

00:40:430 (2) - Maybe something here to represent the different sound (NC or different slider shape)

00:45:803 - I think this should be a 1 beat slider with a reverse too, but you could ignore it since the music is calm yeah calm music, so keep this

01:39:534 - I think you should do something like this, as I think that this sound 01:40:430 - is stronger than this 01:40:878 - sound, so you should ignore the second one rather than the first one. I noticed that you didn't want to use time gaps less than 1 beat (aside from the beginning), but I'd say this is the most intense part of the song (Vocals and drums), so you could do that and use a new combo and different slider shape to indicate the change, or you could just do something similar to this and ignore this 01:41:773 - sound

01:59:596 - Lower the volume for the spinner end

Easy:

00:27:445 - You can add a circle here

00:35:057 - 1/2 slider with a reverse(?) Don't want to add too many 1/2s
00:36:848 - ^

01:20:504 (6) - I think placing something on a blue tick is hard to read for new players(?) I think 1/3 is okay, considering this BPM
01:44:683 (2) - ^ you can start this on the red tick before it

01:59:596 - Lower the volume for the spinner end

That's all I could find, if I said something wrong, I'd appreciate it if you explain to me why you did it like that, as I'm a new mapper, so this would help me improve

Good luck with the map ^-^

1. 00:49:384 (2) - some slider ticks like this one sounds too loud compared to the music, specially when there is no piano sound, would be cool if you reduce the volume of those a bit

1. 00:51:624 - don't you think that the pianos at the red tick are too loud to being ignored a 1/2 repeat slider would fit the music a lot better
2. 00:59:235 (3) - same

1. 00:40:430 (3) - you better remove that tiny break, tbh it will take everyone offguard and miss the next note xd
2. 01:54:758 (4,5) - a slider would work better for an easy diff

Natsu wrote:

general

1. 00:49:384 (2) - some slider ticks like this one sounds too loud compared to the music, specially when there is no piano sound, would be cool if you reduce the volume of those a bit

Lowered to 10% for volume of this part

normal

1. 00:51:624 - don't you think that the pianos at the red tick are too loud to being ignored a 1/2 repeat slider would fit the music a lot better
2. 00:59:235 (3) - same

easy

1. 00:40:430 (3) - you better remove that tiny break, tbh it will take everyone offguard and miss the next note xd
2. 01:54:758 (4,5) - a slider would work better for an easy diff

ignorance wrote:

I disagree with the diff spread.

0.76* makes sense for an Easy diff, but 0.94* for a Normal? That's barely a difference from the Easy diff. Sure, people may say that "SR is messed up for low bpm songs" but songs with similar bpms have Normal diffs >1.3*. Since 0.94* is significantly lower than every other map of similar bpm, and the Normal diff is like 0.18* (~25%) more difficult than the Easy diff, the spread issues revolving around SR shouldn't be ignored.

Also the map is 2 minutes long... Surely more diffs can be made other than just an Easy and Normal..? This map could definitely be better...

My thoughts.

Natsu wrote:

lol, personally I think the normal diff is enough for this kind of song

ignorance wrote:

Natsu wrote:

lol, personally I think the normal diff is enough for this kind of song

I mean some more diffs would be nice but the ranking criteria doesn't require it. Not sure if I agree that it's enough - there can definitely be more. That's just me though, nominator's word > mine obviously.

If more diffs aren't made for whatever reason, then there will be two distinct difficulties that represent this song. There should at least be sufficient variation between them, imo, otherwise the map feels "lackluster". Right now, they seem too similar to be considered separate difficulties that can be justifyingly ranked.

Does this mapping really represent the song to its full extent?

Regraz wrote:

Oh if you want more diffs you could of course make a map by yourself and upload it if you want!

ignorance wrote:

Regraz wrote:

Oh if you want more diffs you could of course make a map by yourself and upload it if you want!

So you agree that the set feels incomplete? Surely an incomplete set shouldn't be heading for ranking?

If that's some sort of sarcastic comment making fun of my cristicism, I urge you to justify how your map represents the song enough for continuation of it to be unneccessary.

Regraz wrote:

Oh, I don't think the set is incomplete. I mean, if you think it is not complete, you could of course make a mapset of that by yourself.

Shortthu wrote:

the spread is up to the mapper, and it's fine ranking EN spread mapset with songs like this

ignorance wrote:

I disagree with the diff spread.

0.76* makes sense for an Easy diff, but 0.94* for a Normal? That's barely a difference from the Easy diff. Sure, people may say that "SR is messed up for low bpm songs" but songs with similar bpms have Normal diffs >1.3*. Since 0.94* is significantly lower than every other map of similar bpm, and the Normal diff is like 0.18* (~25%) more difficult than the Easy diff, the spread issues revolving around SR shouldn't be ignored.

Also the map is 2 minutes long... Surely more diffs can be made other than just an Easy and Normal..? This map could definitely be better...

My thoughts.

Pachiru wrote:

d o n ' t
j u d g e a m a p o n i t s S R

+

i don't see the problem with the map, since the 0.96 diffs is the topdiff. if it was a 3* Hard, that would be a problem indeed, but in this case, it's not.

ignorance wrote:

Pachiru wrote:

d o n ' t
j u d g e a m a p o n i t s S R

+

i don't see the problem with the map, since the 0.96 diffs is the topdiff. if it was a 3* Hard, that would be a problem indeed, but in this case, it's not.

Judgements can't be entirely formed from SR, but it can't be simply ignored. Also, I was arguing that there's not enough variation between the only two diffs in the set for it to be considered a complete set with varying difficulties.

How would a 3* Hard be bad for this song? The BPM may be low, but the mapping in the Easy and Normal diffs clearly skips over so much in the song. 3* for a Hard isn't anything out of the ordinary, either.

How would a 3* Hard be bad for this song? The BPM may be low, but the mapping in the Easy and Normal diffs clearly skips over so much in the song. 3* for a Hard isn't anything out of the ordinary, either.

Natsu wrote:

yeah that's your opinion, Regraz have a different opinion, that's all

Regraz wrote:

I actually do not think they are details. They are pretty much like minor stuffs regarding intensity and pitch. Putting this aside, one thing I want to ask, even if they are details, is there any ranking criteria saying that one must not skip details of a song?

How would a 3* Hard be bad for this song? The BPM may be low, but the mapping in the Easy and Normal diffs clearly skips over so much in the song. 3* for a Hard isn't anything out of the ordinary, either.

About this, I think though camouflaged with initially flawed statement that "details cannot be skipped" there are almost no differences between this post and the posts in Beatmap Project forums that are requiring mappers to make map for them out of their own preference, which sounds pretty taking-for-granted. So yeah, if you think you want to add more things onto this song, you could certainly upload a new mapset!

ignorance wrote:

Seems like BNs are going to completely ignore the criticism that I have made and claim that Regraz has an "opinion" and therefore critism can be ignored.

It's a battle lost by default if BNs disagree with you (without justification, oddly enough) so my efforts to help improve this mapset before it goes into its "completely finished" "ranked state" are done.

This map will stay lackluster and an insult to the artist of the song, I guess that's not my problem.

ignorance wrote:

so my efforts to help