wtf???????
Kisses wrote:
top diff name feels inappropriate and far from professional to use in the ranked section
spacing spacing spacing spacing spacingMaridiuS wrote:
"00:37:058 (1) - why is this extended when 00:36:710 (1) - is not" first one seems to end on a drum so it seems justified
With the rest I agree and I have additional concerns regarding top diff
- When using such large spacing as a basis, nothing is really emphasized. Using just minimal spacing difference to "emphasize" a note doesn't work in such huge spacing because they play essentially the same. The most obvious example is here for example 00:54:085 (6,7,1) - . The (1) marks the first downbeat in addition to being loud with the guitar, cymbal and whatnot but it's spacing is just sligthly higher than the basis of the section. Some are kinda justified because the movement is hard for sliders like 00:51:421 (1) - .Because it's made like this there's nothing for the player to look forward to, everything is just spaced a lot. Density and spacing is what separates difficulties. If you don't like the density or spacing of this diff, there are lower diffs to play. It would of course be ludicrous to make everything balls-to-the-wall crazy with spacing because then it's hard to justify where the strong and weak moments are. However, I believe I did make contrast enough throughout the map. The first kiai is audibly stronger than the later parts of the map which is why the 2nd half isn't really mapped all that crazy save for the last kick slider section. It's the main reason why it's so heavily spaced, the guitars are much more emphatic and the drums are constantly rolling. Much of the stuff before the kiai was also spaced a bit similar but to a lower degree because I wanted the progression to be a bit more ,well, progressive. having too close spacing before and really high spacing would be a bit out of place because then one would say, 'why is the kiai so spaced from the earlier parts? space it less' etc. to me, it's all about progression here.
Some more case to case for that concern: 00:50:610 (1) - This slider here starts the big section yet it has lower spacing than the circle before it and also comfortable movement which leaves the note not emphasized at all except by rhythm.Rhythmic concerns
- 00:47:830 (1,1,1,1) - These are not emphasized at all except by rhythm. With low spacing and 1/2 gaps without circles they're significantly easier to do than the rest of the section when it should be vise versa. I'm sorry but are you blind? Don't say 'not emphasized at all' when the most glaring thing I did here was increase the SV by a vast amount
- 00:48:988 (2,3,1) - and 00:49:452 (2,3,1) - are really nice and feel nice because they have proper contrast from the weaker and stronger notes.
- 00:52:232 (6,1) - Because of your huge overall spacing slider to slider patterns are incomparably easier because in the grid you cannot use more spacing to balance the difficulty with spacing since the rhythm makes it easier. So in this part the (1) is much easier to do than its counterparts, its same spacing except its slider to slider now.
- 01:45:050 (6,1) - In this section this is the only example in which you emphasized the (1) with such awkward movement. Compare it to 01:46:209 (1) - (whose emphasis is in minus) and 01:47:019 (1) - which is quite comfortable you can easily see the inconsistency. I can suggest making it all to awkward movement but that would be such a pain on this bpm, so the safest way is just to simple emphasize it with spacing and make it consisent. Currently the section seems like a mess tbh because nothing is really consistent. I think you're just looking a bit deeper than what is actually intended. The latter is just a pure pattern, you can highlight all the objects together and see it's a pattern, separation or consistency through spacing isn't my intention. The same goes for the former pattern but because there are kick sliders being used, there's a bit more opportunity to make for some nicer visuals, which was also that intention as it does play like a strict pattern too. I'm not looking for spacing-emphasis-consistency or what have you because it all becomes too convoluted when dealing with set patterns.
Other stuff
- 00:50:610 - This section is emphasizing drums. I don't think the kicks are pratically that audible or important compared to the solo guitar which you randomly decide to follow like here 00:52:000 (5,6) - . Idk I can't offer many opinions here I just feel like its a miss to map over the solo guitar on plenty of places like 00:51:073 (1) - 00:53:853 (4,6) - 00:55:012 (5) - etc. I suppose its a matter of preference. I find the guitar rhythms to be too spastic to follow accurately, and because of the spacing, i find it to be a bit simpler to play if the rhythm was also simplified outside of the guitar melody.
- 01:36:131 (2) - and 01:36:362 (2) - This is really indistinct compared to 01:36:016 (1,1) - . In the section you tend to map the solo guitar so i dont understand how do those fairly inaudible sounds warrant active rhythm. 01:40:185 (4) - Here you end on such a guitar note. I think two people mentioned this to me now, and I say the same thing: it's a distinct pattern, the rhythm is being missed here for intentional purpose due to patterning.
- 01:46:556 (1,2,1,2) - And more such examples in which (2)'s are muuch weaker than (1)'s but both are mapped actively and with same spacing. It's just a pattern... The spacing reflects the pitch was the idea but moreso that these are strict patterns.
- 01:52:463 (1) - and 01:34:626 (1) - I literally do not understand why must you put in this SV, nobody enjoys this and as like kanzaki pointed out, Mlaw couldn't even play it on HT properly. Players have no control over this sliders, they just look cool but they offer the most annoying gameplay experience where you have to hit it in such perfect timing window and then move the cursor accordingly in order to play it "properly". It won't even be proper because the players will surely not move with the curves of the sliders. You play this like a sideways V. Someone say Mlaw can't hit this but I've seen many other players still keep combo. I don't get the point, a sample size of 1 or 10 is arbitrary. It plays like a sideways V, that's all there is to it. Crazy guitars = crazy sliders.
- 01:41:807 (2,3,4,5,6,7) - The drums kick in 01:42:039 (4,5,6,7) - yet they get 0 emphasis with this descent in spacing. If the guitar is dropping in intensity but drums are raising it isn't as 1dimensional as to just follow guitar layer, when following the drums will be much more stimulating and exciting. where do you hear the drums raising? the drums are the same volume throughout. I valued the drop in pitch more than the drums because drums are everywhere but you only hear this kind of pitch-decrease once in this song, I think that's worth following.
Kroytz wrote:
spacing spacing spacing spacing spacingMaridiuS wrote:
"00:37:058 (1) - why is this extended when 00:36:710 (1) - is not" first one seems to end on a drum so it seems justified
With the rest I agree and I have additional concerns regarding top diff
- When using such large spacing as a basis, nothing is really emphasized. Using just minimal spacing difference to "emphasize" a note doesn't work in such huge spacing because they play essentially the same. The most obvious example is here for example 00:54:085 (6,7,1) - . The (1) marks the first downbeat in addition to being loud with the guitar, cymbal and whatnot but it's spacing is just sligthly higher than the basis of the section. Some are kinda justified because the movement is hard for sliders like 00:51:421 (1) - .Because it's made like this there's nothing for the player to look forward to, everything is just spaced a lot. Density and spacing is what separates difficulties. If you don't like the density or spacing of this diff, there are lower diffs to play. It would of course be ludicrous to make everything balls-to-the-wall crazy with spacing because then it's hard to justify where the strong and weak moments are. However, I believe I did make contrast enough throughout the map. The first kiai is audibly stronger than the later parts of the map which is why the 2nd half isn't really mapped all that crazy save for the last kick slider section. It's the main reason why it's so heavily spaced, the guitars are much more emphatic and the drums are constantly rolling. Much of the stuff before the kiai was also spaced a bit similar but to a lower degree because I wanted the progression to be a bit more ,well, progressive. having too close spacing before and really high spacing would be a bit out of place because then one would say, 'why is the kiai so spaced from the earlier parts? space it less' etc. to me, it's all about progression here. It was not my point to compare sections to sections but rather patterns within themselves. Sections have their overall intensity but within sections you have stronger and weaker things. The issue here was that the basis of section is raised so high that those stronger parts within section don't have any real emphasis (particularly spacing). I already listed the examples for this concern.
Some more case to case for that concern: 00:50:610 (1) - This slider here starts the big section yet it has lower spacing than the circle before it and also comfortable movement which leaves the note not emphasized at all except by rhythm.Rhythmic concerns
- 00:47:830 (1,1,1,1) - These are not emphasized at all except by rhythm. With low spacing and 1/2 gaps without circles they're significantly easier to do than the rest of the section when it should be vise versa. I'm sorry but are you blind? Don't say 'not emphasized at all' when the most glaring thing I did here was increase the SV by a vast amount Uh my bad I've written it like that but it was not what I meant. I have underestimated the difficulty of the pattern, the SV is quite fast on last 2 sliders, forget this.
- 00:48:988 (2,3,1) - and 00:49:452 (2,3,1) - are really nice and feel nice because they have proper contrast from the weaker and stronger notes.
- 00:52:232 (6,1) - Because of your huge overall spacing slider to slider patterns are incomparably easier because in the grid you cannot use more spacing to balance the difficulty with spacing since the rhythm makes it easier. So in this part the (1) is much easier to do than its counterparts, its same spacing except its slider to slider now.
- 01:45:050 (6,1) - In this section this is the only example in which you emphasized the (1) with such awkward movement. Compare it to 01:46:209 (1) - (whose emphasis is in minus) and 01:47:019 (1) - which is quite comfortable you can easily see the inconsistency. I can suggest making it all to awkward movement but that would be such a pain on this bpm, so the safest way is just to simple emphasize it with spacing and make it consisent. Currently the section seems like a mess tbh because nothing is really consistent. I think you're just looking a bit deeper than what is actually intended. The latter is just a pure pattern, you can highlight all the objects together and see it's a pattern, separation or consistency through spacing isn't my intention. The same goes for the former pattern but because there are kick sliders being used, there's a bit more opportunity to make for some nicer visuals, which was also that intention as it does play like a strict pattern too. I'm not looking for spacing-emphasis-consistency or what have you because it all becomes too convoluted when dealing with set patterns.tldr; emphasis and consistency don't matter?
Other stuff
- 00:50:610 - This section is emphasizing drums. I don't think the kicks are pratically that audible or important compared to the solo guitar which you randomly decide to follow like here 00:52:000 (5,6) - . Idk I can't offer many opinions here I just feel like its a miss to map over the solo guitar on plenty of places like 00:51:073 (1) - 00:53:853 (4,6) - 00:55:012 (5) - etc. I suppose its a matter of preference. I find the guitar rhythms to be too spastic to follow accurately, and because of the spacing, i find it to be a bit simpler to play if the rhythm was also simplified outside of the guitar melody. simplifying in a 2901894 star diff :thinking:
- 01:36:131 (2) - and 01:36:362 (2) - This is really indistinct compared to 01:36:016 (1,1) - . In the section you tend to map the solo guitar so i dont understand how do those fairly inaudible sounds warrant active rhythm. 01:40:185 (4) - Here you end on such a guitar note. I think two people mentioned this to me now, and I say the same thing: it's a distinct pattern, the rhythm is being missed here for intentional purpose due to patterning. tldr; rhythm of the song doesn't matter?
- 01:46:556 (1,2,1,2) - And more such examples in which (2)'s are muuch weaker than (1)'s but both are mapped actively and with same spacing. It's just a pattern... The spacing reflects the pitch was the idea but moreso that these are strict patterns.It doesn't really reflect the pitch I feel like because (2)'s aren't even pitched notes but get the same spacing.
- 01:52:463 (1) - and 01:34:626 (1) - I literally do not understand why must you put in this SV, nobody enjoys this and as like kanzaki pointed out, Mlaw couldn't even play it on HT properly. Players have no control over this sliders, they just look cool but they offer the most annoying gameplay experience where you have to hit it in such perfect timing window and then move the cursor accordingly in order to play it "properly". It won't even be proper because the players will surely not move with the curves of the sliders. You play this like a sideways V. Someone say Mlaw can't hit this but I've seen many other players still keep combo. I don't get the point, a sample size of 1 or 10 is arbitrary. It plays like a sideways V, that's all there is to it. Crazy guitars = crazy sliders.
- 01:41:807 (2,3,4,5,6,7) - The drums kick in 01:42:039 (4,5,6,7) - yet they get 0 emphasis with this descent in spacing. If the guitar is dropping in intensity but drums are raising it isn't as 1dimensional as to just follow guitar layer, when following the drums will be much more stimulating and exciting. where do you hear the drums raising? the drums are the same volume throughout. I valued the drop in pitch more than the drums because drums are everywhere but you only hear this kind of pitch-decrease once in this song, I think that's worth following.well they have a change in snare volume here 01:42:039 (4,5) - but it appears i was using a bad musical device at the time since its just two notes rather than ascending of intensity.
MaridiuS wrote:
doesn't really work in a rhythm game, it belongs in a museum.
As I said when I suggested the hitsounds changes, you need to actually make this pattern have proper feedback since this is not what the song is doing rhythm wise the 1-2 idea. However, that’s it, the rest of MaridiuS points I totally disagree being veto worthy;Kroytz wrote:
“It's just a pattern... The spacing reflects the pitch was the idea but moreso that these are strict patterns.”
Consistent spacing can still give proper emphasis with movement/reading, as long as the mapper do something even small flow/reading tricks or increase the spacing a bit, is fair enough. Some people think that emphasis needs drastic changes but that’s just a personal mapping preference, if he wants to go generic let him do it.MaridiuS wrote:
“The issue here was that the basis of section is raised so high that those stronger parts within section don't have any real emphasis (particularly spacing).”
Inconsistency regarding different sounds on the song? 01:45:166 (1) – and 01:47:019 (1) – are similar indeed and they play very similar and also have similar spacing considering 01:45:050 (6,1) – and 01:46:904 (2,1) – but 01:46:209 (1) –is different and SHOULD NOT play/feel the same way as the other mentioned objects.MaridiuS wrote:
“01:45:050 (6,1)- In this section this is the only example in which you emphasized the (1) with such awkward movement. Compare it to 01:46:209 (1)- (whose emphasis is in minus) and 01:47:019 (1)- which is quite comfortable you can easily see the inconsistency. “
Except the map is following the guitar in other parts as well? The 1/1 sliders are clearly following the melody(guitar) and it’s really strong on the song/map 00:51:421 (1) -/ 00:52:463 (1) - / 00:53:274 (1) – so he’s not switching to guitar at random as you said. Also if he doesn’t follow the kicks what sort of rhythm suggestion you have? I didn’t see you placing circles/sliders and providing a better idea anywhere on the mod post.MaridiuS wrote:
“00:50:610- This section is emphasizing drums. I don't think the kicks are pratically that audible or important compared to the solo guitar which you randomly decide to follow like here 00:52:000 (5,6)- . “
The melody decrease in intensity starts to decrease with 01:41:807 (2) -, aren’t you the one who said he should give proper priority to the guitar instead of drums? This pattern is doing precisely that by ignoring the introduction of the drum on 01:42:039 (4) – and mapping the guitar pitch decrease with the entire pattern 01:41:807 (2,3,4,5,6,7) - ,MaridiuS wrote:
“01:41:807 (2,3,4,5,6,7)- The drums kick in 01:42:039 (4,5,6,7)- yet they get 0 emphasis with this descent in spacing.”
You know what should be in a museum? The mentality that “My way of mapping is better than yours”MaridiuS wrote:
“doesn't really work in a rhythm game, it belongs in a museum.”
Consistent spacing can still give proper emphasis with movement/reading, as long as the mapper do something even small flow/reading tricks or increase the spacing a bit, is fair enough. Some people think that emphasis needs drastic changes but that’s just a personal mapping preference, if he wants to go generic let him do it.-->Net0, even if he did those "small things" it's a much better idea to try to explain them than simply go with "I went with patterning/aesthetics over that" or something like that. You're saying what I have expected him to say and it probably would be much different if he did rather than his responses and would have more room for discussion. Once he said it doesn't matter, he doesn't value it or the like and the discussion ends. The meaning of emphasis is to make something have special importance, something distinct, small things is definitely not a special distinction. Usually mappers just do a little bit for the sake of arguing and defending that "it's emphasized" when the fact is, it is not emphasized enough.
Just look at the ranked category, we have Rendezvous, PP Compilation and DJPop’s Hitorigoto ranked in the last two months. Three maps that at their very core are completely and undeniably so different considering what elements were used to create a game level that relates to the song they’re mapping, also offering such different gameplay experiences. I’m glad by that because, if you don’t know yet, the community is big and there’s a player base for each of this maps.-->Let's not discuss different maps, I myself have tried dq modding PP comp so using that as argument will only make it worse for you. There are countless variables that go with every different map.
If you were to force concept comparisons (aesthetics, spacing, emphasis, etc), those maps could never coexist in the ranked category, so I strongly advice you to not veto maps based on this personal preference of yours. Forcing people to map towards “x” “y” concept and not “z” shouldn’t be encouraged and only shows a person who don’t understand anything beyond their own mapping ideas, therefore, should not be a reason for a veto. As long as the map shows what concepts were used, how they’re used, proved it’s not amateurish executed, mappers shouldn’t be disallowed to map towards any style/structure they want to go for.-->If a mapping idea is to make the map look good without priority into rhythm or emphasis then anything can go as long as it looks good enough. Aesthetics is not a primary way to represent a song, it just complements the maps ideas. I'm pretty sure its not just my preference but a preference of a larger portion of the mapping community to agree that rhythm and emphasis take priority over aesthetics.
MaridiuS wrote:
net0, a mapper like kroytz should know that using a slider instead 2 circles will make the (1) I was talking about emphasized by rhythm. Works in both sections for example on those guitars like 00:53:853 (4,6) - could be made into 2 sliders instead of the current arrangement. Or he could make these into 01:36:016 (1,1) - 2 sliders. But kroytz is aware that he's not following them and is doing that intentionally for the "strict patterning". He switched to guitar on random here 00:52:000 (5,6) - .
Already pointed why it wasn't random and you didn't explain why it is random/gave a suggestion regarding the rhythm for this section; 00:50:610 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,1) -
You actually posted a new time stamp not mentioned before on 00:53:853 (4,6) - when your original mod post was about the previous part. Also why are you making a suggestion on the rhythm of 00:53:853 (4,5,6,7) - as two sliders when both 00:53:969 (5,7) - are also strong enough for clickable rhythm? Not to mention this has no relation to the 1-2 patterns on 01:36:016 (1,2,1,2) -
Regarding “01:41:807 (2,3,4,5,6,7)- The drums kick in 01:42:039 (4,5,6,7)- yet they get 0 emphasis with this descent in spacing.” I dismissed it, it was my bad point completely unrelated to the veto.OkayConsistent spacing can still give proper emphasis with movement/reading, as long as the mapper do something even small flow/reading tricks or increase the spacing a bit, is fair enough. Some people think that emphasis needs drastic changes but that’s just a personal mapping preference, if he wants to go generic let him do it.-->Net0, even if he did those "small things" it's a much better idea to try to explain them than simply go with "I went with patterning/aesthetics over that" or something like that. You're saying what I have expected him to say and it probably would be much different if he did rather than his responses and would have more room for discussion. Once he said it doesn't matter, he doesn't value it or the like and the discussion ends. The meaning of emphasis is to make something have special importance, something distinct, small things is definitely not a special distinction. Usually mappers just do a little bit for the sake of arguing and defending that "it's emphasized" when the fact is, it is not emphasized enough. What's emphasized enough? Making screen cross jump contrast with 0,1x SV? There's no "right" amount of contrast, what's needed it's the contrast itself, be it using moviment contrast/ be it being visual distinction, be it being spacing, etc.Just look at the ranked category, we have Rendezvous, PP Compilation and DJPop’s Hitorigoto ranked in the last two months. Three maps that at their very core are completely and undeniably so different considering what elements were used to create a game level that relates to the song they’re mapping, also offering such different gameplay experiences. I’m glad by that because, if you don’t know yet, the community is big and there’s a player base for each of this maps.-->Let's not discuss different maps, I myself have tried dq modding PP comp so using that as argument will only make it worse for you. There are countless variables that go with every different map. Yes there are a lot of variables that go with every different map, that's why you just proved I'm right when I said you can't force concepts comparisions on every map like you're doing with spacing on this difficulty.If you were to force concept comparisons (aesthetics, spacing, emphasis, etc), those maps could never coexist in the ranked category, so I strongly advice you to not veto maps based on this personal preference of yours. Forcing people to map towards “x” “y” concept and not “z” shouldn’t be encouraged and only shows a person who don’t understand anything beyond their own mapping ideas, therefore, should not be a reason for a veto. As long as the map shows what concepts were used, how they’re used, proved it’s not amateurish executed, mappers shouldn’t be disallowed to map towards any style/structure they want to go for.-->If a mapping idea is to make the map look good without priority into rhythm or emphasis then anything can go as long as it looks good enough.Of course not, you're talking like this map has 0 relation to the songs rhythm and in reality, out of the 2 minutes drain of the song there's only ONE pattern you're using to fundament your veto, that being the 1-2 patterns on; 01:36:016 (1,2,1,2,1,2,3) - /01:37:869 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - , so don't make it sound like this map dismiss the song because it doesn't, at least not in the amount you're implying Aesthetics is not a primary way to represent a song, it just complements the maps ideas. I'm pretty sure its not just my preference but a preference of a larger portion of the mapping community to agree that rhythm and emphasis take priority over aesthetics.If that was true Rendezvous should have been ranked without making such fuzz since the map was legit all about emphasis and rhythm and no concerns with visuals. There's no consensuous in mapping but we do try to avoid extreme things and I'm sure this map is really far from pushing the limits of what we can consider rankable content
Regarding the rest, I feel like I have enough in the posts already, and regarding your ending message... uh is this you trying to provoke me or make the discussion healthier?It's me warning you that I know of previous improper behavior coming from you, so I was purelly asking you to avoid such things.
If you have provided how your rhythm or emphasis follow the song we might have simply reached a compromise. But at this point it's like allowing you to do whatever you want with the editor and make it ranked because it looks cool. You can easily make patterns that look nicely or w/e while still abiding to rhythm or emphasis aspects. There are countless ways to make a pattern which is why I don't understand how do aesthetics/patterns go above those elements of mapping. You will simply need to rearrange the objects a bit and think of a new good looking pattern which is always possible.Kroytz wrote:
Did I not just say you and I value things differently? If what you're veto'ing is because you don't like how I value patterns/aesthetics over 'following the song' (which at its' core is subjective through personal values in mapping), then go ahead and have fun wasting your time veto'ing everything by me. You're not doing justice here by trying to force me to change my mapping style or my values. If there's nothing tangible here that helps me improve what I've provided for my map, then I'll continue to push this forward as per usual
Maridius, can you just look at this from an unprofessional standpoint. As a casual player seeing this map randomly in a multi or finding it in ranked section he will just go "YO LOOOL WTFF IS THIS MAP XXDXDDXDXDXD" . osu! is not the most serious of games and personally having one of this once in a while only makes people happier.MaridiuS wrote:
doesn't really work in a rhythm game, it belongs in a museum.
What does this have to do with anything? I cannot see a way for those maps to be mapped better with the given sounds so there's no mapping quality / song following concern. They followed the weird song to the beat ;d.Kroytz wrote:
Maridius, can you just look at this from an unprofessional standpoint. As a casual player seeing this map randomly in a multi or finding it in ranked section he will just go "YO LOOOL WTFF IS THIS MAP XXDXDDXDXDXD" . osu! is not the most serious of games and personally having one of this once in a while only makes people happier.MaridiuS wrote:
doesn't really work in a rhythm game, it belongs in a museum.
It is not making fun of anything, it is not abusing anything, it's just a fun map mapped to the best of mappers extent.
I don't know why you are referencing other maps but kroytz's statement is quite clear and valid. It's good that content like this can be given to an audience albiet niche. In your mods you go out of your way to make many individual points but you fail to grasp that you two have different fundamentals. Just to add, you stated that kroytz should know to do this and that, as well as point out so many things that he shouldn't do yet you've not given a single example to change in your mod, which is in all honestly, quite poor modding.MaridiuS wrote:
What does this have to do with anything? I cannot see a way for those maps to be mapped better with the given sounds so there's no mapping quality / song following concern. They followed the weird song to the beat ;d.Kroytz wrote:
Maridius, can you just look at this from an unprofessional standpoint. As a casual player seeing this map randomly in a multi or finding it in ranked section he will just go "YO LOOOL WTFF IS THIS MAP XXDXDDXDXDXD" . osu! is not the most serious of games and personally having one of this once in a while only makes people happier.
It is not making fun of anything, it is not abusing anything, it's just a fun map mapped to the best of mappers extent.
I don't know why you are referencing other maps but kroytz's statement is quite clear and valid. It's good that content like this can be given to an audience albiet niche. In your mods you go out of your way to make many individual points but you fail to grasp that you two have different fundamentals. Just to add, you stated that kroytz should know to do this and that, as well as point out so many things that he shouldn't do yet you've not given a single example to change in your mod, which is in all honestly, quite poor modding.Except Kroytz referenced my point from a different mapset with entirely different topic? There is an option of first giving your concerns and then work with suggestions if a compromise is visible. However, kroytz's reply was that he "intentionally missed" the rhythm in some parts. What would suggestions do in this situation? I could've included suggestions it would've made the mod better I agree, but that would not change anything when Kroytz already has the opinions to why he won't change that.
From a BN to BN: I've seen you approach a number of maps and attack them on approach of quality but you never seem to improve it based on the mapper's style, rather on your own interpretations; an example being this map https://old.ppy.sh/s/641854 . I think it might be better for you to take a break from quality checking maps and perhaps come back after you've meditated on looking at a plethora of different styles before you start examining again