Kaifin wrote:

Kaifin 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 02:04:836 (1) - is mirroring 02:04:555 (1) - as a pattern and that is why it exists. It being a circle or 1/8 doesn't matter from playing perspective as it would be the exact same. For 02:07:555 (2) - There is no context to have a 1/8 slider here so a so a single circle is more fitting.
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 Might aswell, I thought I had applied this earlier already but must have forgotten to save changes or sth

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 This pattern 02:07:930 (1,1,1,1) - wouldn't work without the circle added. Given how the vocal sample isn't the exact same as earlier I see no reason to strictly follow what I did earlier.

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 Are they really that fast when put in context? Not really so thats why they were so fast in the first place. Still lowered them by 0.3 as I agree it gives more ephasis to the slider afterwards.

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

Mir wrote:

1. 00:38:868 - The intensity of the song barely changed yet 1/4 sliders now go across 70% of the screen. I don't think this increase is very representative of the song, at most I would have these at 1.5x AT MOST, anything higher is pushing it I think. There's only some snares and some melody notes and I don't believe those call for such a drastic change in SV. I think you are overanalyzing the SV here. All that matters with this kind of motion is basically where the sliderheads are positioned at since you will do a rotating movement. Also the most intense part of this section is covered with these so I find them prefectly good.
2. 00:39:618 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1) - This is exactly the same in the song as 00:41:118 (1,2,1,2) - so I'm not quite sure why you decided to use 2.65x sv 1/4 sliders with perfect overlaps the second time, and simply circles the first time? 00:45:618 (1,2,1,2) - These are more intense than that and have half of the SV. Not only is this inconsistent in itself, it is completely inconsistent with 01:29:118 (1,2,1,2,1) - which is also the same thing.
   1)You can't really lead to a natural pattern that uses this gimmick from 00:39:430 (2) - So circles make more sense
   2)This part is fundamentally different from 00:36:618 - as I am now following the "candy candy candyland" lyrics
   3)00:40:743 - This allows for a slider as the "laaand" is much longer than the "candy" and therefore slider makes more sense. With this being a slider it allows for immediate use of the speeding up gimmick from earlier 00:37:368 (2,2) - with the same feel and emphasis from 00:39:618 (1,2) - .
3. 01:04:555 (1,2) - I don't see why 1 should be a slider especially if the drum it's only is only going to be covered by 01:04:836 - . It feels like you put a lot of emphasis on the drum then ignore the same intensity drum right after. I know you want to obviously map 01:04:649 (2) - so it makes sense, but I think having 1 as a circle would fit a lot better imo. Ok sure
4. 01:05:305 (1) - Note doesn't exist in the song. It's a little odd especially that usually you would avoid overmapping in this section. I think that extending 01:05:118 (1) - to be a 1/2 slider would fit much more the song, but either the SV would need to be lowered or some rearranging would have to be done. I do believe that a change would be beneficial here, though. I think this overmap is justified and serves a purpose because a long slider would force me into following lyrics for 01:05:493 (1,2) - aswell because it would be way too weird to suddenly hit the 2 kicks when I'm following lyrics so closely. Besides this overmap makes 01:05:399 - feel more natural anyways as skipping the strong beat would just be confusing in this context.
5. 01:08:493 (1,1,1,1) - Should keep your NCing consistent: 00:55:368 (1,2,3,4) - Removed NC
6. 01:25:743 (1) - Not really seeing why this is a 1/4 slider, seeing as 01:24:993 (3) - wasn't. The melody ending doesn't seem like a good justification for this either, I would suggest just leaving it as a circle, especially since the added sliderend kinda sounds out of place.
7. 01:25:180 (1,2,3,4,5) - I don't think this should be a quint mainly because you also did the exact same quint at 01:27:243 (1,2,3,4,1) - except it has a much more intense melody on it. I think for the first one having two 1/4 sliders would work a lot nicer. There is a very audible "spring" sound which I'm catching with the slider.
8. 01:30:618 - This section also uses a completely different concept from 00:42:618 - yet the earlier section even has added snares you decide to ignore. I also don't see why 01:30:618 - should be any different from 01:27:618 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,1,2,1,2) - because again, it's the same thing with only slight variation at 01:33:243 (1,2,3,4,1,1) - with the backing melody. I'm following the lyrics like I have for the whole part before this too (candy candy candy land) lol
9. 02:02:305 (1,1) - This doesn't play very well, you have to make a very fast movement to the end of the slider, then to the beginning again only to move again at high velocity to the end. It's not very practical for a slider arrangement and not only that, but since that is so uncomfortable to play players will mostly get 100s on these sorts of arrangements at this speed. I would suggest flipping the second slider so you get something like this instead. This is also the only time in this entire kiai an arrangement of this kind is used, every other instance has cleanly placed sliders like 02:05:305 (1,2) - 02:08:305 (1,1) - so you're telling me back and forth movement doesn't feel natural? Most players will get 100s because they are lazy not because its not well playing. Nonetheless I lowered the SV on this I guess to give players more incentive to try playing it like I want for them to play it.
10. 02:04:368 (1,1,1,1,1) - This, similarly, does not play very intuitively. The flow and SV changes make this very difficult to 300 especially with how a player is more likely to move as the red line indicates than the expected green line. Naturally, you are aware of this. So you would also be aware of how the player will be more inclined to drop the sliderends to hit the slower 1's and miss the end of the faster 1's as a consequence, leaving this whole pattern as not much more than an acc dropper with questionable flow. Let's not even mention the speed at which the player needs to accomplish this, it's all 1/4 and 1/8 sliders. This is very much playable because of all the sharp angles it has. I think you are overthinking the impact of 1/8 sliders here since its like playing normal circles.
11. 02:06:618 (1,1) - This flow is also extremely unintuitive, as the player will definitely drop the sliderend of the first 1 to get to the second 1. I think a more intuitive slider arrangement is ideal here. Again you're saying players being lazy as being exremely unintuitive flow. These 2 are absolutely fine flow-wise because of how forgiving the loop section of 02:06:993 (1) - is even if you were to have trouble following the curve perfectly.
12. 02:08:680 (2) - Does not exist at 02:02:680 - so maybe it should be removed or added in one of those places. Seems inconsistent. It serves a purpose to allow for 02:07:930 (1,1,1,1) - to work as a pattern, without it there would be no way this pattern could be made to work.
13. 02:08:305 (1,1) - These have the same issue as 02:06:618 (1,1) - but can be easier adjusted with just flipping one of them. Insert argument about player laziness.
14. 02:08:868 (1) - This is... something else. Arguably the only high velocity reverse in the entire map other than 02:11:493 (1) - which is a lot more intuitive, is wildly inconsistent with 02:04:368 (1,1,1,1,1) - So you are saying a straight repeat slider is not intuitive? I establish the sideways movement with 02:07:930 (1,1,1) - and even give it the proper speed for the players to expect to play it with because of the placement of 02:08:680 (2) - being so far away that expecting this to be super fast would only be natural because of increasing sv throughout the pattern and the high spacing just before it.
15. 02:09:993 (1,1) - Again the flow of these is questionable. Your cursor as a player is approx halfway through 02:09:618 (1,1) - when 02:09:993 (1) - starts to fade in and because of slider leniency you can easily do a straight movement between the 2. I'll actually leave a picture for you to see what I mean
    Picture

    
16. 02:10:649 (1,2,1,2) - Definitely overrepresentative of the sounds. They're not as intense as anything else in this section yet get 1/4 back-and-forths. I think a stream would fit more or something, but not this pattern. The angle this comes out of is also extremely unintuitive and would fit better if the whole pattern were flipped instead. Most players screw up here that I can see. Disagree on overrepresentative part, but I can tone it down just a notch.
    The angle is also just fine
17. 02:12:055 (1,2) - Would recommend lowering SV significantly as these are not strong sounds at all. 02:12:430 (1) - Should also imo be nerfed SV-wise as it stands out the most here where all it is is a small screech in the background. Did this with earlier mod already
18. 02:35:868 (1,2,3,4,1) - What is this even following LOL. There's no 1/4 entry here at all and definitely not one strong enough to warrant a 1/8 sliderstream at this spacing. Two 1/4 sliders like before would have been fine. If you can't hear 1/4 entry here then you need to turn you volume up frankly. It is very audible with only 02:36:149 (4) - being questionable but I think it works well to buildup to the "ooh" sound.
19. 02:44:305 (2,2) - This.. also doesn't really seem necessary. There's nothing on the reverse at all and there's no real difference in the song on these. Already went over these when Sinnoh modded the map. Having these be 1/4 sliders would take away from how imporant 02:44:868 (1,2,3,4) - are and they are mapped as 1/4 anways. I would have a full measure of 1/4 sliders which would make the important ones feel underwhelming.
20. 03:04:555 (1) - Would recommend mapping both of these drums with two circles rather than putting a slider on both then a slider on 03:04:743 (1) - which has only a drum on the head. Umbrella-ing the drums with sliders like this doesn't seem so representative. 03:04:555 (1,1,1) - The drums go from high pitch to low pitch and lose volume with it. I think this is the perfect way to represent that frankly.
21. 03:05:399 (4,1) - Jump feels a little excessive considering barely anything changes about the intensity other than the pitch of the melody. I think a nerf would be appropriate. This doesn't need any nerfing its just how it should be for 03:05:493 (1,2,3,4,1) - to be emphasised as I want it.
22. 03:36:430 (1) - This slider feels very weird as it umbrellas the fade out jingle that the previous patterns were mapping. I think turning this into a 1/4 slider and ending the song here would be sufficient and still quite nice. Skipping the fadeaway effect makes no sense to me so not changing this.

hi-mei wrote:

Structure:

01:01:368 (1,2,3,4) - the way you make escalation here is way different from 00:49:368 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3) - these are the same music phrases but ehhhhhh in first one you do 3.3x > 3.3x > 3.3x> 3.3x > 5.7x > 5.7x
In the second one theres is like: 2.3x > 3.9x > 4.2x > 4.3x

What i mean here, is that you dont really know what it is when you see it. Are you implying players are blind? This has nothing wrong with it and just so you realize these were made by 2 different people anyways so you will of course have some tiny differences. Still the feel of the part is very much the same just with slightly different numbers

01:25:180 - 01:36:618 - this part is done really nicely! thanks I guess

02:08:305 (1,1) - these are equal, you increasing the sv instead It wouldn't match the size increasing which is the point of this arrangement,
besides the sv increase is relatively small in this context so it doesnt effect playability it is there to help figure out the really fast sv of 02:08:868 (1) -
02:08:868 (1) - same, have no idea why you choosing patterning over logic here This isn't even the same sound as the 2 previous ones and this one is 1,5x longer even

Hitsounding:
Few words about hitsounds in general:
01:12:805 - till this point there are no rhythm in your hitsounding at all, ?????????????????????????????

00:39:055 (2) - 00:39:430 (2) - this hitsounds are really questionable, i mean, i basically have no idea why is 00:39:055 (2) - has a Normal and not add/soft+whistle (like this 00:39:430 (2) - ) My fault for copying this slider so forgot to change
OR
why is 00:39:430 (2) - add/soft+whistle? You got 4 sounds, 00:38:868 - 00:39:055 - 00:39:243 - 00:39:430 - 1,3 are loud, 2,4 are quiet, but instead of replicating this into music you make these 3 as loud ones 00:38:868 (1,2,1) - and the last one 00:39:430 (2) - as a quite, despite all of them has the same placement and speed. Normal - Soft - Normal - Soft, makes sense to me to catch the strong sounds with normal (being the stronger) and more silent sounds with soft 00:38:868 (1,2,1,2) -

Flow:
02:00:618 (1,1) - 02:09:993 (1) - 03:06:243 (1) - I think that sliders like that should be more simple form-wise, because most of players are struggling in hitting these (i actually watched Yaong's and OPJames replays). My suggestion is to nerf it, like 20% less SV. Let people bitch about fast sliders on hollow wings maps. 2 players = most players, They are consistenly hard which is the point. I've seen probably closer to 50 plays on the map and the whole section is very muuch comboable. Won't say that it isn't hard because it is obviously.

Aesthetics:
00:08:118 (1) - actually its an aesthetic thing but still triggers me. THAT RED ANCHOR!!!!!!!!! its on purpose

Overall I can say that you can fix all of the major issues in like 20 mins of ur time and requalify this. Theres not that much to cry about but still you got to make this a bit more readable. So far its been 90minutes of going through mods and that is just for my parts, dont know about handsome

ailv wrote:

00:35:868 (1,2,1,2) - imo ctrl-g each of these to match raising pitch + intensity much like u do here 00:41:868 (1,1,1,1) - current way is fine

02:47:868 (1) - i don't hear anything to warrant a repeat here turn volume up and playback rate 50%

03:03:805 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - these are different rhythms here but they're mapped the same way moving it back to 03:03:618 - is the right way to capture this rhythm imo
honestly here i don't even see any reason to skip over the melody as before and after you map it fully uhh I have no idea what you mean by this?

02:03:055 (2,2) - why aren't these 1/8 to match consistency with 02:04:555 (1,1) - Because I don't want to use the 1/8 sliders when they serve no purpose. Overusing them would just be lame and a simple circle here fits well.

i think this 03:11:493 (1,2) - works better stacked under 03:11:118 (1,2) - nope

i don't see a reason to make a sharp stream 03:29:868 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - , whereas the rest are flowy curve
1) It's goddamn hard to make room for dozen fullscreen curved streams
2) Because it plays just fine anyways

02:45:430 (4) - this seems like a part of 02:44:868 (1,2,3) - this pattern when it's seperate, it lacks the vocals, it'd change the shape here to help distinguish this uh not sure what you mean?

Shiirn wrote:

01:24:618 (1,2,3,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,1,2,3,4,1,2,1,2,3,4,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,1) - this seems like it's trying to follow the melody but it's really not following the melody at all - specifically, new comboing and some minor pattern changes to better fit the melody and turning - like new comboing at 01:24:805 - instead of 01:24:618 - , 01:25:180 (4,5) - turning this into a 1/4 slider since there's no actual 5-note roll here like the others, etc etc. it's pretty "minor" playability-wise but it really fucks with how the map's going with the music. Changed this around a bit with previous mods already and in the beginning I'm only buying time to start following the candyland lyric repeats

03:00:899 (1,2) - really switch ncs, 2 is the start of the actual section... i guess

03:29:868 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - This stream being the only one with a sharp turn (A literal 180) seems out of place. Either add more sharp turns at the midpoints to the other ones at points to make it part of a pattern, or smooth this one out. meh I think its just fine, a single variety stream is more than enough.

03:36:430 (1) - Silence this sliderslide. It's audible and fucks with the ending fade. good point

Kisses wrote:

Top
01:40:649 - I'm not quite sure why you miss out on many 1/4 sounds such as these, aren't they part of your main rhythm? boring

01:51:618 (1) - I don't really like how you switch to kick slider spam later on in this section, sticking with this rhythm 01:48:618 (1,2,3) - feels like it would do the map more justice. Not only is this rhythm more audible (The vocals are so minor they don't feel worth following), already established but it comes off as a more creative rhythm and you can structure it creativity too. The kick sliders just play like a flurry of 1/2 beats which don't feel fitting to this section imho. boring

winber1 wrote:

SPOILER

Mir wrote:

Alright, now for the winber diff which actually has just some questionably unfair gameplay aspects.

1. 01:00:243 (1,1) - This is too obscured. I guess i can tilt it the other way
2. 00:12:618 - This section's sv changes are really unclear, mainly because at first glance it looks like you're lowering sv for the kicks, but then 00:15:243 (3) - should be lower, and 00:17:118 (1,2) - should be too. Basically here the unclarity of concept makes this whole section a pain to read and could be a lot better executed if a more consistent instrument/layer were emphasized with sv changes, as for now it just looks like they're made faster to be the same length and for the pattern which comes at the cost of readability and song expression. To be frank, the point was not to follow a specific instrument. It's to follow the general rhythm, and I knew fully well what I was doing is not particularly "easy" to read. The idea was make a pattern technically very easy to play for the experienced players, but give it a little more spice with the reading challenge. I also think it works particularly because I'm not moving the positions of the sliders at all. It's back and forth movement in the same spots pretty much the whole section. So basically what I'm focusing on is purely reading capability, though of course after 1 play through this section you can just "feel" the music and play it seamlessly anyway. I wasn't particularly trying to be very conventional to begin with in this map, and this is one of the variety of "colors" in style that the map gives Ehh... I don't know if I can really see what you mean here. It just seems really random to me. I'll wait for more people's input on this issue. For now I can understand your sentiment, but the song and map don't line up - and ideally it should be mapped in a way that makes it clear what "colors" or "style" you're showing but this doesn't really hit it in my opinion.honestly, it might not be executed that well, I could have been a little more consistent, but I can attest that for many people the rhythm feels very natural. In the end really, the mapping intent was just to make this more of a reading heavy pattern
3. 00:59:118 (2,3,4,5,6,1,2) - This part has a drastically lower density and intensity despite being still the same intensity in the song as the other parts. I think a buff is in order here to be consistent with how the other parts are represented. Alright since a few people are mentioning the same thing, I made the spacing a little bigger. I do agree the intensity is not particularly that much lower (if at all), but personally I felt like it was winding down
   and not increasing in intensity at all, so I wanted to have the same feeling in the mapping, but I may "overemphasized" that fact.
4. 01:25:930 (5) - If you're gonna follow the melody mainly with this pattern this note is better off removed imo. Same for 01:27:149 (3) - Not particularly following specific instruments here, but the general "feel". I didn't particularly feel like the song was exactly "progressing"
   any where but not winding down in any way. The back and forth movement along side the very small spacing and slow progression of the pattern matches with the constant 1/1/tick vocals in the back as well as the "steady" intensity of the music imo. I know very well I'm not mapping everything in the music,
   nor am I trying to follow one particular thing. I just wanted something relatively easy and smooth to play, but not giving a lowering intensity kind of feeling,
   and I just decided to go with back and forth movements and stacks. I can see that but it doesn't really give that feeling to me either,
   I'm just suggesting to remove them to follow the the "steady intensity" as you said. Keeping that note in actually raises the intensity of the map (albeit not by much, but still could feel more or less unneeded by the player) and that kinda contradicts that. idk I think removing that note just puts an awkward pause for no reason and stops teh back and forth motion. I'm either forced to stack it, use very questionable anti-spacing or just put it somewhere else.
5. 01:45:618 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1) - Yeah... same as topdiff I really don't see what this is mapped to and it seems quite misrepresentative of the actual buildup which is less the intensity mapped but more a soft buildup to lead into the actual buildup. perhaps it depends on he person where the "build up" begins, but I think the whole wind sound effect is quite the build up and the vocals right after it is more of a weaker "suspense" before the next section. You can interpret it differently, but as long as you're intentions are clear and reasonable, I see nothing wrong with doing it this way. It has been accepted that you can map short kick sliders as held notes if done properly, so albet there is not discrete notes played in the fx,
   the constant hitcircles match the continuous rise in the sound and intensity I can't really agree with this even if it's done before.
   I've also never really heard of this being generally accepted but if it is I don't see why and it doesn't represent the buildup here. What I know is accepted is mapping buzz sliders to held buildups, but not entire 24 note streams. I still stand by that this doesn't represent the intensity. Regardless of how it's interpreted, the song objectively does not go 1/4 here and definitely not to this degree. I'm still open to being convinced but I don't know how much convincing I'll need to give into this, as it just doesn't follow the rhythm. It follows the feel maybe, sure, but you can make a feel with buzz sliders or a long slider or god forbid a spinner too. Difference in opinion I guess. it would be a different story if the stream constant high ds spacing or really jagged/sharp angles, but the stream plays extremely fluidly. I'm sure most people who can play this pattern well can attest that replacing this WHOLE section with maybe a few repeat sliders, or a spinner, or a long slider (and vice versa) would make this section bounds more moring and uninteresting.
   I believe using multiple repeat sliders often work well for things you want to map passively, but personally I think the buildup isn't particularly passive and big spacing is the wrong way to represent it
6. 02:00:618 (1) - These are fine. 02:09:430 (4,1) - When flow like this gets introduced, it gets questionable. It's quite an unfair gameplay element imo because you can't really be certain how far you have to move to 300 the first slider. Feels kinda rng. There is a special golden zone in timing that you need to hit as well as probably a spot on the slider itself to get a 300. if mastered, it's not too bad, but you actually don't need to move at all to get a 300 Yeah, I see that now. While insane, it's doable. This is fine.
7. 02:26:868 - Again contrast here is a bit much for the slight change in the melody, lowering sv to like 1.3x or something would be more reasonable. I'm also not really a fan of how 02:24:618 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - just sorta maps.. nothing. It's just 1/1 rhythm over the diverse rhythm choices the song is giving you here. small sliders follow vocals, big sliders follow the synth melody a. Didn't really count the vocals as worth mapping cuz it blends almost completely into the back, but okay. Now my question is why not follow the melody all the time and not just for the peaks of it? Feels a bit off to me since you did 02:30:618 - later on, which could easily be replicated before with less spacing, or could be changed to have 1/1 sliders that increase in SV?I do this "following different parts of the music" thing a lot throughout the map (e.g. 03:12:618 - , 03:24:618 - ,02:36:618 - , and these three sections combined 01:24:618 - 01:59:868 - ). Like literally every part of the song I'm mapping something pretty wildly different and in a different way, yet I still feel like the mapping style feels "cohesive" in a way.
   
   For example 01:24:618 - 01:59:868 - the artist doesn't particularly even use any different melodies in these sections for the most part, albeit with some minor tweaks and drum beat changes. In fact, literally all that is happening is that the artist is bringingout different parts of the music by adding different sound effects and modulations to them. And in order to be equal to all those parts, I've also mapped in such a way to represent different parts of the music everytime something feels like it has changed, even though technically the melodies have always been there in the back, just less emphasized.
   
   Also, I liked this pattern because it gives like a "cooldown" for the player for a previously more difficult section, and then it starts ramping back up again, wit hthe second section being all hitcircles.
   
8. 03:02:868 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... this doesn't map anything specific and is really hard to expect. I think actually mapping the melody here would be more representative than this. The whole second section is a turnaround of the first. All sliders are hitcircles and all hitcircles are sliders in addition to the fact that all sliders are all very low SV. You may not agree with it, but I felt like the whole idea of the map was to really demonstrate the "colors" so to speak of the song as there is so many different things that are going on and that could be mapped, literalyl every section
   is mapped very distinguishably different as well as mapped to different things depending on what felt prominent (or even just a different outlook on an already defined style) I actually see now why you decided to do this, and it makes sense to me. So this is fine.
9. 03:18:617 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - This is very questionable as well. It's too unrealistic to fully 300 this pattern consistently because the distance to move to 300 the first slider is so unclear. It's also really awkward to hit these if you actually move to try to 300 the first slider. The #1 player on this diff didn't move at all to hit these and got a 300 on some and 100 on others based on the position of the stream after it. It just seems really unclear and the rng aspect of it is the unfair point that I'm making here. with good accuracy (rhythmically) you actually will 300 these. Also just as a side note, this is also in line with my previuos statement about emphasizing different parts of the music and colors, namely that i followed the streams in the back more strongly than the main synth melody. I'm just mentioning it cuz I am not just making different cuz I can. I feel like the theme of the map was this "colorfulness" so I just wanted to continue mapping different parts of the music (of course also out of fun as well, not just my mapping intent) Already conceded this point.

winber's diff, while still pretty intense, suffers from fewer issues than the topdiff. The only clear issues I see are misrepresentation of the song through mapping generic rhythm (see 01:45:618 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1) - 02:24:618 (1,2,1,2,1,2) -03:02:868 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - etc) and the 1/8 slider gimmick is quite frankly unfair to play even if it's SSable. It's just really unclear how far to move to SS it, and as soon as you attempt to move to SS those, the reentry to the stream gets awkward.

true it's a little generic, but at the same time, it greatly contrasts with the difficulties of the other sections, whether it reading difficulty,
technical difficulty, or just accuracy difficulty, etc. Sure i'm trying to be "special", and whether or not I executed that unique style adequately or not is up to the player to decide, but I think if my intentions are clear, and the patterns are within reason, there are no reasons to condone maps like this. I think fanzhen's diff lies in the same boat, very different and unique, but although I felt the the emphasis and some patterns were whack as fuk, i appreciate the novelty and thought that went into some of the patterns.

within reason is a pretty broad statement, and will probably change as players get better, but the point is that mapping is technically still a creative outlet.
There is bad art, but there are also unique styles of art that are just different. it's just a matter of trying to interpret what exactly it's trying to evoke, rather than just basing its worth on first impressions

I hope you can give me a point-by-point reply and that we can come to a consensus.

EDIT: Apparently those things in winber's diff are SSable just really inconsistently it seems.

To winber, I get that "art" is largely intepretive but it should stick as close to the song as possible in my opinion. Either way, we're making progress, so that's good.

i'm not teh best at explainig things either, but my two cents is that you don't have to like everything, but interpreting something as "to the song" is also largely subjective. Man, like I've mapped many songs which I've tried to either map everything I possibly could, or just used very normal patterns, and it never turns out that interesting. If I wanted to make it fun to play (for myself at least), I would've just spammed 1 2 jumps everywhere, but that wouldn't particularly make me feel any better about what map I made. I think it's pretty cool to explore what you can actually do with just hitcircles and sliders, rather than make a map that most people can't argue anything against.

Minorsonek wrote:

That's why ranking system sucks, map is propably more "rankable" now, but imo previous version was better and now the map is so much worse.

Minorsonek wrote:

That's why ranking system sucks, map is propably more "rankable" now, but imo previous version was better and now the map is so much worse.

Mir wrote:

It checks out though, so nevermind the concerns on the 1/8 sliders (even though I really wish they weren't there because players may try to follow them to no avail).

toybot wrote:

]

being passive aggressive doesn't help your case nor does it make people think you're worth listening to!

P A N wrote:

this version looks so much better

DendyMudak wrote:

I hate osu community.