if u get why its broken then thats why it has to be dq lolInvisFrames wrote:
Man, why'd this have to be DQ'd. I get it if something is broken in the map, but I'd love for this to be ranked. It's so interesting and fun to play/watch.
if u get why its broken then thats why it has to be dq lolInvisFrames wrote:
Man, why'd this have to be DQ'd. I get it if something is broken in the map, but I'd love for this to be ranked. It's so interesting and fun to play/watch.
meh he just need to fix this and then it will back to qualify sectionInvisFrames wrote:
Man, why'd this have to be DQ'd. I get it if something is broken in the map, but I'd love for this to be ranked. It's so interesting and fun to play/watch.
yeayea, shouldn't need a rebubble before requalify since changed thisScubDomino wrote:
good job probox
Kurai wrote:
unreal... Fixed. I wonder if there is an award for sloppiest mapperMariahCarey wrote:
fanzhen's Extra
02:24:618 - two green points at the same time with different values btw
qProfessionalBox wrote:
d
dq incoming ripKurai wrote:
qProfessionalBox wrote:
d
lmao how many more of these metadata banner mistakes are thereMonstrata wrote:
Hi, sorry, but according to this image, the artist should be "tofubeats feat. Liz".
I'm going for the added edgy feel by having banner be inconsistent with metadata!Monstrata wrote:
Hi, sorry, but according to this image, the artist should be "tofubeats feat. Liz".
Its a sick new copypastafieryrage wrote:
that's what they said about the big black btw so that's not really a valid argument
also promethean kings lol
reply to my mod, it's been requalified twice without a reply and going through the points in the editor it is clear you did not apply it without replying or anything like thatKaifin wrote:
top diff
02:04:836 (1) - think this would be cooler if it was just a circle, since there is no vocal here and you presumably are using the 1/8 sliders because of the vocal on 02:04:555 (1) -, also later you decide to use an extended slider here instead of mapping this note at 02:07:649 (1) - so is there a reason for that inconsistency? can't tell if the sound changes but it sounds the exact same to me
02:04:930 (1) - accidental lower volume? it sounds really weird, would bump it up to 60 cause it makes it sound like a missed sampleset
02:07:555 (2) - should be a 1/8 slider for consistency with 02:04:555 -
02:08:680 (2) - why map this note when you dont map it at any of the gaps like 02:02:680 - or 02:05:680 - where it's just as strong? if you insist on mapping this note please make it a 1/4 slider because 02:08:680 (2,1) - this sort of spacing/structure really reads as a 1/4 gap not a 1/2 one
02:12:055 (1,2) - if these sliders were a bit slower sv then 02:12:430 (1) - would be a lot more emphasized, since there are no real huge emphasized sounds on these notes when compared to 02:12:430 (1) - i dont get why they need to be so fast
02:52:180 (1,2,3) - might want to make these a touch slower, really small window for the slider ends + it would read a little better since they're straight making them long af and can look like 1/4: just a minor thing though
that's actually breaking the bng rules lolKaifin wrote:
reply to my mod, it's been requalified twice without a reply and going through the points in the editor it is clear you did not apply it without replying or anything like that