what happened :L
Battle wrote:
hi
[Hard]
01:28:223 (2,1) - consider moving the 2 to not be stacked, you've used stacks before but they indicated 1/1 gaps and not 1/2 gaps so this can throw people off (it's also cuz you have 01:31:632 (1,2,1) - which stacks but has a different rhythm gap u kno) good point, fixed
[Multicolor]
03:07:496 (1) - tbh you should really have this follow the kind of like rising thing the bg since it's like the most notable thing here, the 1/1 slider makes sense in kind of a "dying down" in terms of density perspective, but 2 sliders can be used to make it less dense clicking wise while also leading to the held 1/8 repeat. 1/1 slider isn't really following anything so yeah, I highly suggest you change it
03:16:223 (1,2,3) - kinda same
actually I feel they are not necessary, or even not important - since I only mapped the "rising thing" once at the very beginning. Also, that overlapped with the hold slider part so I don't really want to map it out.
i'll be back when ur fine
Kagetsu wrote:
isn't this 110 bpm?
It's kinda questionable but I think it's 220 - the main, notable parts like vocals lands on 220. Only the drums feel like 110, but to me that's not enough for me to be convinced. I'll take 220 anyway.
there is no way this song is 220 bpm, the drums, structure, phrasing and everything scream 110.Nerova Riuz GX wrote:
Kagetsu wrote:
isn't this 110 bpm?
It's kinda questionable but I think it's 220 - the main, notable parts like vocals lands on 220. Only the drums feel like 110, but to me that's not enough for me to be convinced. I'll take 220 anyway.
hmm...interesting.Zhuriel wrote:
there is no way this song is 220 bpm, the drums, structure, phrasing and everything scream 110.
just look for example at the first 4 measures: you have a repeated pattern at 00:01:087 - 00:03:268 - 00:05:450 - 00:07:632 -, with chord changes on the latter two and one vocal phrase each, on 110bpm each of those is one measure which is very natural while in your current timing has each as 2 measures. in the next 4 measures it's even clearer with the big synth downbeats. i could go on but you get the point.
i don't even understand what you mean by the vocals "landing on 220" tbh, would you mind elaborating on that more?
i fail to see how any of these would imply 220. rhythmic density does not imply tempo, definitely not anywhere near as strongly as the structure of this implies 110.Nerova Riuz GX wrote:
From 220:
- Intense parts like kiai are more 220-like, which contains more constant beats and vocal relay
- Iconic vocal parts, e.g. 00:23:723 (2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - that oh-oh thingy
- Rap-like vocal parts keep placing downbeats with long white ticks on 220, e.g. 00:44:723 - 01:02:177 -
From all the things above I can be convinced by both of them, but I picked 220 since it represents more on the structure I made on this map. It's much more instinctive for people to understand because people commonly play tons of 1/2 notes on most of the maps.while there are sometimes ambiguous cases you have yet convince me that this is anything close to ambiguous. also, tempo does not depend on your mapping choices in any way so that is not an argument for 220 either.
Again, this is ambiguous because it has variants of properties, it just depends on how you look at it.
(kinda mean but i have to say that the example you made is quite weird, since you paste only the timemarks of "white ticks" instead of "patterns", like you stated in the context. It did take me a while to understand what you meant. But your point is still constructive and worth to be discussed, still.)i linked only the beginning timestamps of patterns since i wasn't really looking at the map, only the song and the timing
technically I don't really need to speed up SV by doubling the BPM - there's even no sv changes during the song, so why do I have to do that when I can just do it by changing the general SV?Cerulean Veyron wrote:
This might be interesting... I believe the BPM appears to be quite concerning, hence why would people actually time a BPM just for some vocal track? xddd
I mean, parts like 00:09:814 - 01:19:632 - 02:11:996 - (technically the pre-choruses) sounds definitely 110. I could really tell that the percussion mainly lands over every first and third ticks on timeline though. I assume you doubled BPM to alternatively speed up the pace of the slider velocity(?)
this is a pretty poor excuse though; just because people don't point it out earlier (either because they weren't sure themselves or have no experience with timing) doesn't mean that others might find issues with it.Nerova Riuz GX wrote:
(if that's obviously 110 then it should be pointed out by tons of those modders before please, and seriously no one has ever talked about this in the past 2 years so wtf is this situation now)
this so much.Monstrata wrote:
Really don't understand why you guys care so much about halving/doubling bpm's lol. The only thing that changes is the kiai flashing/nigthcore mod, and honestly 220 bpm is a better fit for how the song was mapped. I'm fine with either tbh, even if 110 is technically "more accurate".
MariahCarey wrote:
actually, you've all been wrong the entire time. this should be 440 bpm. The most thoroughly consistent rhythmical part of the song is the literal metronome playing on top of 90% of the song at a whopping 440 beats per minute! I can't believe everyone oversaw this one tbh.
(this is a meme)
whooshKaydax wrote:
I really hope you where joking there. The bpm is 110, not 440. Also that isn't a metronome, that is a high hat that plays in triplets. The main beat isn't based of that, as there is a overall temp of a 110MariahCarey wrote:
actually, you've all been wrong the entire time. this should be 440 bpm. The most thoroughly consistent rhythmical part of the song is the literal metronome playing on top of 90% of the song at a whopping 440 beats per minute! I can't believe everyone oversaw this one tbh.
(this is a meme)
how dare you say such a thing, it's obviously noticeable, it was exactly doubled! DOUBLE THE SPEED!! seeing that bpm on song select screen gave me nausea, literally unplayable.-Nishiki- wrote:
this map got unqualified because of a literal unnoticeable difference in bpm
i mean you literally quoted the part where i said that it's a meme ...Kaydax wrote:
I really hope you where joking there. The bpm is 110, not 440. Also that isn't a metronome, that is a high hat that plays in triplets. The main beat isn't based of that, as there is a overall temp of a 110
diraimur wrote:
-Nishiki- wrote:
this map got unqualified because of a literal unnoticeable difference in bpm
how dare you say such a thing, it's obviously noticeable, it was exactly doubled! DOUBLE THE SPEED!! seeing that bpm on song select screen gave me nausea, literally unplayable.
wahooshionaKaydax wrote:
How did it mess you up. I even played the new version with the fixed bpm and it is exactly the same. Doubling bpm doesn't do anything to the song and it doesn't mess you up when trying to stay on beat.diraimur wrote:
how dare you say such a thing, it's obviously noticeable, it was exactly doubled! DOUBLE THE SPEED!! seeing that bpm on song select screen gave me nausea, literally unplayable.
Metadata is different imo, because accurate metadata does function to give the song/artist/source etc... better citation. BPM on the other hand doesn't have the same citation quality. Big Black for example is 720 bpm according to the composer.Naotoshi wrote:
its not a gameplay difference but in terms of being more accurate to the song as it was composed 110 is closer.. it's like metadata, it doesn't matter at all from a gameplay perspective but still makes more sense if it is like this. besides nightcore mod being more accurate is always nice