i've got a full time job, go to school, have two kids, and other various responsibilities outside of arguing with an inconsiderate beatmapper who wants to have their way and no one else's way, sorry that i put my response to you on the backburner - tbh, you're barely worth the time as it is.YaHao wrote:
5 days later
anyway:
you're a beatmap nominator. you should understand the process of submitting a beatmap through the system and that you're going to get critiques from people to make your map better. not giving a shit about what anyone thinks is the exact opposite of that, you're basically admitting that you're incapable of accepting change - if you wanted to defend yourself, you should be using logic, not your own opinion.YaHao wrote:
//do you really think i care about people's attention at this point?
"only the catchy part are doubled" - so basically an excuse to cover your inconsistencies; you have a LN + double for the "catchy" part in the first half of the section at 00:24:923 (24923|2,24923|3,24923|1,25154|3,25154|1,25385|2,25385|3) - but you just decide arbitrarily, mid-section, to not do it at 00:25:731 (25731|3,25731|0) - when the music is still presented in the same way; you're also saying that this random note at the end of the section is "catchy" 00:26:539 (26539|0,26539|1) - your structure is not sound and you don't want to admit it.YaHao wrote:
//they are for synth sound, similar with with what i did in Normal, only the catchy part are been doubled
i'm more than aware you're not doubling the hi-hat, that's why i mentioned this in my note ("however, I doubt that was the purpose here"); you're doing no favors trying to tell me that you're not doubling the hi-hat when I'm already aware of that. what i'm telling you is that your structure is inconsistent because you're accenting arbitrary notes with jumps and not sticking to a coherent sequenceYaHao wrote:
//no to this, as i'm not doubling the hihat
... this is like, a total example of you just refusing things because you want to. the LN in question is on a 2 when i'm telling you to move it to a 1, and the previous LN is also on a 1. this would make the pattern easier to read and easier to play, not harder. reminder that i'm a very high level 4-key player that has been judging content here and on other games for a long time, and can easily tell you what works and what doesn't, if you're willing to listen.YaHao wrote:
//pitch is not the focusing here, if i place the short LN all pitch relevant, the pattern will be quite hard to play
you're leaving out a main component of the melody. by the way, here's all the relevant notes:YaHao wrote:
//i'm sure here got no main sound which i was following
(i mean, if you want to argue more i could export the mp3 of the synth that i used and you can play it side-by-side if you want incontrovertible evidence)
like i'm saying, you're wrong and you're arguing with someone who not only has made content for a while but also takes the time to produce music once in a while, i already disproved your point about the melody so let's stop dancing around that, fix it to be two triples so it's more accurate; any responses to my notes about you missing a note in the melody are correct and you're not hearing it. apply the notes as I listed or come up with a fix that includes the note in those gaps filled.YaHao wrote:
//like my last explanation, i'm sure 00:40:731 - got no synth sound, there is clearly a break in between, and the triple was used for double for kick + one LN for the synth sound
... are you serious? your whole layering sequence is into and out of triples, there are implicit 1/2 jacks everywhere. if you're legitimately concerned about that, the 1/4 that you're using are for kicks, which are in this instance atonal and don't have a pitch. switch the pattern to [14] 2 4 3 [124], then it's not only separated but also avoids the additional chaining of 3.YaHao wrote:
//then there will be so little room for the next note, i will have to place two 1/2 jack on the same hand
i implied on my note at 40:731 - that you were missing a LN there and then reiterated that it was a result of you missing a note for the melody in your entire structure; i wasn't ok with it, i just wasn't going to hold your hand and tell you every single time that you're missing a note for the melody, you're capable of putting things together and realizing that you have to correct repeated instances of things, come on now. you're putting your laziness clear on display and you're being defensive over a point that was covered; drop it.YaHao wrote:
//how is this become the main sound, like my LN part, they are the 100% same rhythm and you were fine with it not being LN (00:43:962 - )
so, you’re saying the double which only represents a kick and nothing else is more important than the note that has a cymbal crash, bass kick, and a melodic element that you clearly represent as triples in this same combination earlier. got it.YaHao wrote:
//to me the double on the previous 1/4 line is more important
there's no sound here on either channel at all. there's no hi-hat, there's no kick, there's not even really any sort of granularity that merits you even putting a sound here; the only thing that even gives you any sort of defense is that the synth notes hold out that long, but there's nothing else here. there's literally no difference between 00:52:270 - and 00:52:673 (52673|0) or 00:52:904 (52904|0) or even 00:53:135 - where you actually opt into a break. yet again, you're just making stuff up rather than taking suggestions. there's no need for continuation here at all.YaHao wrote:
//can hear the sound on left channel, not hihat but like wub/echo sound, the notes are added so player can have a "continuing" feeling on the pattern unlike 00:52:270 - which can easily hear the break on the rhythm
so again, no real reason. you're subjectively choosing the first note of the melody as more important than the rest of the melody when every individual note is being played at the same volume, with the same instrumental backing (that backing being pretty much nothing aside from the occasional cymbal). structurally, your triples make no sense at all. you're implying another musical/layering element or some sort of accenting within your current musical element, neither of which are happening.YaHao wrote:
//the first sound of the repeated melody
you didn't read my note properly. i said it should be a single note after the [12][34] jumptrill; you have your [12][34] for your kicks, but the next note at 01:27:231 (87231|3,87231|0) - is barely audible at normal rate as it is, and is not a kick, either. it shouldn't hold the same representation. the reasoning behind having this as a [14] is indefensible because there's only one sound (one layer = one note) and the sound in question is comparatively quiet to the previous blast of kicks you just had (if your super loud kicks are doubles, then this super quiet, single instrument has literally no reason to be anything but a single note).YaHao wrote:
//the kick sound (which mapped as 1/4 trill) are stopped 1/4 ahead of the [14], if i'm keeping the double and make them [34], that will be so wrong because the sounds are totally different, a 1/4 jack here is to show that sudden break on the rhythm, plus the pattern around it are quite easy, shouldnt be hard to play
fair enough, this one I did actually get wrong; I can definitely hear them. I'm not sure why I didn't hear them the first time.YaHao wrote:
//you can hear cymbal sound on both timing
fair enough, i didn't say this was a required change, it was a suggestionYaHao wrote:
//i only used 1/8 3 times in this diff as 1/8 with high BPM like this are usually plays really bad, the least thing i want to do here is to mix the 1/4 with 1/8
still a pretty lame, pseudo-rolly jumpstream. not fun to play through but if that's how you want to approach it, that's your subjective opinion - it's acceptable objectively.YaHao wrote:
//smth thats playable is better than pattern that only looks fancy but less enjoyable, at least for me, this part is remapped, will see how that work
your response to this note and what i'm seeing in the map shows that you might not have understood what I was saying... but what you changed it to is actually ok. the doubles for the accented buzzes at 01:40:212 (100212|1,100212|0,100327|0,100327|1) - are a good choiceYaHao wrote:
//there are all triple now after i remapped it yesterday
01:41:539 (101539|0) - you create an entry that requires you to use the same hand as the previous jump - not sure if this was intentional or just not changed, but something i figured i'd tell you
it's 3/16 but if you want to approximate to 1/6, that's on you; 1/6 is not the correct rhythm but it's close enough that most people won't notice anywayYaHao wrote:
//change to 1/6 which i feel more accurate
see screenshot aboveYaHao wrote:
//i wouldnt use "pretty clear" on this sound, i didnt map it because there is a break on the melody, and as the 1/2 slowly comes in, then i mapped them fully
what exactly is the structure here starting at 02:48:923 (168923|0,168923|3) - ? what are you following and what are your doubles - are you arbitrarily picking notes from the melody to follow? if so, I can... kinda see what you're going for, I guessYaHao wrote:
//the music start to calm down right after the kiai, making some high intense pattern whouldnt do anything good to this section
ok fine, not copy/paste but it's still the same arbitrary concept of utilizing triples in a way that it isn't needed, and you're still wrong about the melody as well (see screenshot).YaHao wrote:
//funny enough here is like the less copy paste i've done in this map, if you understand it just say the word, instead of calling it a mistake, can also look at my respond for 01:10:846
mmmmmk. my bad.YaHao wrote:
//they are already quad here
----------
so yeah, you've still got work to do.