then i don't understand your intentions behind modding this chart - if you can "almost predict" what i was going to respond then what's the point
Litharrale wrote:
I think this map is trying to emulate something that it's not and falls hard because of it. At first glance it seemed interesting, something like impulsive state but after having a closer look, this map feels like it's just being random for randoms sake. The only thing differentiating this from a brand new mapper's map is that it has "Abraxos" attached to it.
shrug
"brand new mapper" is a massive stretch, and i think you're greatly exaggerating the number and severity of inconsistencies present in a chart but what do i know right
oh and i guess my name now is a viable justification for quality yay
Litharrale wrote:
First 10 seconds
In the intro you establish this pattern of 1/4 LNs and singles. The 1/4 LNs appear to be attached to chords with notes in the bass clef, except this is only true some of the times. There are notes like this 00:02:984 (2984|0) - which is clearly has a bass sound attached to it.
Looking at a screenshot like this
You'd think that the notes in col 4 would have some very specific and strong purpose. This section is practically 3+1 and that's ok when it makes sense but...
It doesn't.
The one highlighted in blue isn't special and sounds just like the rest. But the note after it is a strong high note so maybe the theme is that col 4 is meant to launch you into the next bar? No because there are notes like this 00:04:083 (4083|3) -
which are completely different to the first example.
it's a pity that you missed the fact the LNs themselves follow a secondary synth that rises and falls in pitch - they correspond to each of the individual columns and what do you know they're PR'd
00:02:984 - this just DOES NOT have the bass clef or whatever you call it - it doesn't appear in the same audio channel as with the other LNs too
i guess it felt good for you to go "it doesn't" in that line - ah ha you got me good there yes
the thing is, you kinda missed your mark on how i PRd the part here
00:01:413 (1413|1,1570|0) - pitch goes down so therefore left
00:01:884 (1884|0,2041|1) - pitch goes up therefore right
00:02:356 (2356|0) - lower than the main synth at 00:02:198 - so therefore left
00:01:256 (1256|2,1727|2,2198|2) - made to stay in the same column because secondary bass synth
tl;dr - main PR for bass synth, cannot really PR for main synth because it'll clash and it's not what i want
Litharrale wrote:
00:09:267 (9267|1) - I can't even begin to understand why this is 1/6
00:04:240 (4240|1) doesn't sound the same as 00:09:267 (9267|1) and hence they're not mapped the same
if you think that the 1/6 does not correspond well enough to the song, that's just cause musical relevance to that degree has never been considered in the chart - it's not a wrong method of charting any more so than using certain chords for certain sounds is
Litharrale wrote:
So why is this section 3+1 and ignoring things like PR (only when it's convenient see bass notes like 00:08:010 (8010|0))? It just seems random and almost like an autoconvert disguised as "too deep for you technical mapping"
so you're a BN and you're supposed to moderate and decide the quality of beatmaps holistically - and somehow you think that because of some simple misunderstanding of PR and patterning you dare have the basis to claim that whatever i've done is like an autoconvert disguised as "too deep for you technical mapping"? piss off will you
Litharrale wrote:
00:21:047 (21047|2,21073|0) - "arpeggioing" a snare like this is weird. A snare drum is hit once so having multiple notes at different times for the same sound doesn't really make sense. It also breaks the rule of "each note must be mapped to a distinct sound"
another misunderstanding
must've felt good to utilize the "oh ho it breaks this and this rule" catch, but then again
00:20:732 (20732|1,20837|1,20968|0,21073|0) - this is what you're supposed to be looking at - these 1/3s go to the vocals, which in essence may be a bit light on the second iteration but the staggering of them is what i wanted to represent.
Litharrale wrote:
00:20:837 (20837|1) - While we're on weird 1/6 notes, this should also be on the blue tick, I understand there is a sound there but there it is definitely not 1/6
see above
Litharrale wrote:
Changing the last two points to what they should be turns the pattern into my thoughts on the map https://imgur-archive.ppy.sh/WaOckt3.png
3 things:
1) the gap between the first and second note is far larger than a 1/4 gap
2) the gap between the second note and the [34] chord is extremely small, which makes it impossible to hit the [34] chord if you leave a 1/4 gap without bleeding a super late 200 or late 100
3) hitting the 31 gallop as a chord is incredibly inefficient for timing
Litharrale wrote:
00:41:099 (41099|3) - this map is also a ghosttown (ha)
very light vocal stagger (again), it's the complement of 00:40:837 (40837|1,40955|1) - and i included it because i deliberately wanted the first entrance part of this section to be a little awkward since the music there feels like a rush of sounds to me and i wanted to keep the players on their toes
i've already established beforehand that all vocals will have some form of second iteration, and the idea is that this goes hand-in-hand with the last point
Litharrale wrote:
00:40:209 (40209|0) - The transition between the sounds you are mapping starting from this bar is weird and janky because it just kind of randomly changes without a clear divison in the music or patterning. There are notes here which are mapped to both, some that are mapped to one and some that are mapped to the other. It plays out so the only way to make sense of it is in the editor
"There are notes here which are mapped to both, some that are mapped to one and some that are mapped to the other" can you at least help me out here and
tell me what you mean exactly? Litharrale wrote:
00:58:429 (58429|1,58586|2,58743|3) - These LN overlaps are overemphasized seemingly for the sake of it. Making them longer would more accurately cover the sound and also make it not crazy hard to SS on
so instead of assuming that it was a mistake on my part, you went ahead with your narrative and claimed that this is not only overemphasised, but emphasised arbitrarily. i'm finding it hard to not take offense just solely on what you've said here lith, please help me out
Litharrale wrote:
This isn't even mentioning how it seems practically copy pasted from here 00:53:403 (53403|1) -
you chastise me for supposedly not PRing a previous section (which I did), but you're chastising me here for PRing an integral part of the song?
as for why this section in particular, is copy-pasted, a good portion of the chart is built around this factor - if you think that this somehow entitles you to call me lazy or bad then you've got to be extremely short-sighted at best
Litharrale wrote:
This maps flow from one sound to another through patterning is janky, the LN lengths are weird and inconsistent and there are ghost notes left and right. None of these seem to be mistakes but rather done to make the map edgy and random so it stands out.
you shouldn't call something edgy and random simply because you don't understand the ideas of a less stringent (but still systematic) layering/patterning approach. it's hypocritical of you to call out on this map's less stringent layering/pattern when impulse state (which you faved) too has similar degrees of stringency
i'm personally extremely insulted by the absolute lack of depth and
tact in this mod but who cares right you're the BN you call the shots and the bubble pops
Litharrale wrote:
Also, HP of 9.6 is practically unacceptable for a 3.6* map. Find better ways to stop people mashing
since when did you start using SR as an indicator for chart difficulty?
since when did charts need to have high SR to have high HP?
@rivals or maxus - feel free to continue, won't be actively pushing on my part but yeah; no change except for LN lengths at 00:58:429 - etc.