MaridiuS wrote:

03:14:298 (2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1) - Just asking but I fail to understand what is being followed here. The vocals 03:14:298 (2,4,5) - which are like the only thing remotely intense in this pattern are not emphasized by either spacing or rhythm. 03:14:460 (3) - this note is too quiet to the point that I'm unsure if it's even a hihat.

MaridiuS wrote:

03:15:271 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - same concern here.

Lasse wrote:

there was never an actual reply to p/5947741 by the mapper

also @Bubblun: this is not how vetos are supposed to be handled anymore, see https://osu.ppy.sh/help/wiki/People/Bea ... atmap_Veto
we are still in the process of mediating old vetos and put this one on higher priority now, please wait until it has been discussed

Lasse wrote:

Further discussion maybe?

Lasse wrote:

Furthermore the given replies were oftentimes far from satisfactory and pretty much nonsensical.

ProfessionalBox wrote:

Lasse wrote:

some issues I have with the top diff Let's hear them!

03:04:082 (1) - clicking this seems so strange with what's going on the song, deleting this and making 03:03:920 (1) - a 1/2 or 3/4 slider seems nicer This current patterning is a way of emphasizing the complete stop that the music has between 03:03:839 - 03:03:920 - by a large spacing from a slow slider going to a fast kickslider. The reason it is a kickslider is because it immediately shoots the cursor movement back into the large and fast slider velocity that the part before it had and the part after it has in order to make the increase in overall spacing feel natural right from the start. Anytyhing else but a kickslider would feel lackluster in my opinion. the issue is not the kickslider itself, but how you put a click on 03:04:082 -
which makes no sense at all as I stated before. also the kickslider doesn't have such an effect as nobody willl follow it, thus no "shooting the movement
back" or anything. things that would make more sense: higher sv + 1/2 or 3/4 slider, a gap on rhythm, ... Made this a slider instead.
03:05:866 (3) - all important sounds are on the red tick, but you put a pretty pointless seeming extended slider over that? // 01:33:110 (6) - It would seem that this is outdated now as there is no extended slider

I also have no idea why things like 03:05:379 (3) - 03:06:352 (2) - etc. have to be fullscreen jumps, it's such a weak sound The fact that it is fullscreen doesn't really hold any extra value here as the whole part has relatively high spacing to follow the transpose the music has and the increase in intensity that the music brings with it because of that. So compared to rest of the spacing in this part this is normal spacing and consistent. it actually holds "extra" value by devaluing your other big jumps mapped to much more significant beats These are not nearly big enough to devalue other jumps in the map. The whole point of this part is what I explained earlier: Following the transpose with bigger overall spacing for the entire kiai section makes perfect sense. Unless you have another argument than devaluing jumps I will not even consider changing these as these are perfectly fine.

overall rhythm choice overall often seems like you just throw multiple layers together losing pretty much all emphasis, like 03:07:974 (2,2) - are emphasizing vocals, but 03:07:487 (1) - ignores vocals, despite 03:07:487 (1,1,2,1,2) - being a rather repetitive thing, so using the same rhythm for all 3 parts of this would make more sense I think This part has been changed with the IRC mod from Bubblun

01:39:110 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,1) - this completely ignores the song with the pretty outstanding 3/4 rhythm of the drums, emphasis would be on http://lasse.s-ul.eu/RohA0gx2.jpg Changed.

02:26:785 (2) - things like this make no sense at all emphasis wise, you put a click on nothing and end it on snare+vocal which seem to be what you usally focus on 02:26:299 (1,2,1,2) - These being the opposites of eachother rhythmwise is intended to emphasize the switch from vocal follow into following drums for the duration that vocals aren't present how does that justify mapping 1/2 sliders that randomly start on nothing but end on important beats. this could probably work as some overall concept of the map, but not like you did it idk if this is an outdated point but the current way is perfectly fine not gonna touch it.

02:57:109 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - completely ignores 3/4 emphasis again, when http://lasse.s-ul.eu/QIRZ6L19.jpg stand out so much more#
this is so distinctively different from 02:55:812 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - yet you just continue the spacing increasing stream. Here it is about the gradual intensity increase of the part as a whole and not individual circles. The important beats get their emphasis from the tiny streamjumps included. Not gonna budge on this.

03:44:298 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - think a rhythm like http://lasse.s-ul.eu/ARIYEh0W.jpg would be nice as that would let you emphasize the snares with 1/4 sliders and the melody with jumps/starting to click again, the current is alright on melody with (5) but seems a bit weird with the very outstanding snares on the white ticks Here the emphasizing in the simplified version happens with the turning point being the strong kick 03:44:622 (5) - simplifying 3/4 rhythms on a 185bpm 7* map, nice. as above this doesn't represent the song at all Current way is perfectly fine.

another thing would be overall usage of spacing between sections, mainly in the "calmer" parts like the intro, making for a lack of contrast between them and the more intense parts
examples would be 00:06:028 (2,3) - 00:05:704 (5,1) - 00:11:218 (6,1) - and a lot more similar stuff in this part. it's only background noise and vocals, yet very similar to the first chorus intensity wise Hmm I like the idea of distincting these more so I'll adjust them to what might seem a little to you but noticeable for me but still I will lower the spacing on these!
00:46:974 (1) - 00:56:461 - this part is executed better in that regard I agree.


00:57:272 (2,3) - what are these even following? big spacing jumps on nothing? I agree these do land on nothingness but this is the kind of reasonable "overmapping" that exists as I went over this with Monstrata and got opinions from players such as Xilver for this aswell. While you are playing this clicking at these part feels only natural opposed to having nothing there. And the argument for these being big jumps refer to my response below. similar to earlier points, devalues the actual strong sounds in the song Current way is perfectly fine.
02:14:461 (2) - can you at least not put huge spacing on these things lol clicking is already barely makes any sense here But this isn't huge? compare to 02:15:272 (2,3) - 02:16:083 (3,1) - 02:16:893 (3,4) - This is normal spacing I use for this part. maybe reconsider your whole spacing concept then Current way is perfectly fine.

Thank you for the mods !

Lasse wrote:

01:39:110 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - this at least makes more sense now
02:56:785 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - still doesnt even try to represent the 3/4 emphasis in the song through movement or rhythm

well the map is still filled with lots of questionable things, so I'll just sum up the main points again since the replies are getting too convoluted

just looking at rhythms 03:04:244 (1,2,3,4) - makes me question what you're trying to do, it feels like mindless circle spam and according to your replies this won't change and it's basically the whole map. basically makes the whole map feel extremely forced since it's filled with circle jump spam that feels completely out of place

some other diffs (like Kibbleru's) actually seem to do this much better from the quick look I had, if you want an example for rhythm choice that actually makes sense

rhythm/spacing overall just feels like a mess, looking at things like 03:07:487 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - just being random fullscreen 1-2 jumps, you can't even argue that you wanted to emphasize vocals or whatever, those are focusing on red ticks

then other rhythm things that just make everything unclear for example 01:25:326 (5) - before this you focused on vocals, then suddenly this just switches to drums and completely skips red tick vocal, followed by 01:25:326 (5,1,2,3) - being some kind of drum rhythm just to go back to vocals on 01:26:299 (1,2,3,1,2) - which is one of the issues that happens pretty much throughout the whole map

[]
short summary:
overall I still think both spacing and rhythm are fundamentally flawed, which is also the main reason to keep this veto
lots of examples in the initial veto (like 00:57:110 (1,2,3) - etc) and in this post, I can basically jump to a random point in the map and find things like 01:31:488 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - within a few seconds, which just feels like nonsensical filler rhythm jump spam

Lasse wrote:

02:56:785 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - still doesnt even try to represent the 3/4 emphasis in the song through movement or rhythm This shouldn't need to follow 3/4 emphasis. This is clearly following the 1/4 drum roll and it's completely justified by the music. Here, there is no imperative to following 3/4, rather that would distract from the mapper's objective here.

just looking at rhythms 03:04:244 (1,2,3,4) - makes me question what you're trying to do, it feels like mindless circle spam and according to your replies this won't change and it's basically the whole map. basically makes the whole map feel extremely forced since it's filled with circle jump spam that feels completely out of place Are you sure? This is probably not the timestamp you want, because everything here is justified in the music... Listen to what the circles are following, when you click them you can hear them syncing to something. I get your concerns though, just, not a good example here imo.

rhythm/spacing overall just feels like a mess, looking at things like 03:07:487 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - just being random fullscreen 1-2 jumps, you can't even argue that you wanted to emphasize vocals or whatever, those are focusing on red ticks If you look at the map as a whole they aren't "random full screen" jumps, they aren't even that big since vertical screen jumps are a lot smaller than horizontal screen jumps. Rhythm-wise, they follow kicks and vocals. Following vocals =/= emphasizing vocals. Mapping these as 1/2 sliders is too simple for this difficulty, using 1/2 circles is the way to go so inevitable you have to map kicks and vocals to 1/2.

then other rhythm things that just make everything unclear for example 01:25:326 (5) - before this you focused on vocals, then suddenly this just switches to drums and completely skips red tick vocal, followed by 01:25:326 (5,1,2,3) - being some kind of drum rhythm just to go back to vocals on 01:26:299 (1,2,3,1,2) - which is one of the issues that happens pretty much throughout the whole map Yes, agree with these. Brought it up with ProBox at one point, I still recommend fixing this.

[]
short summary:
overall I still think both spacing and rhythm are fundamentally flawed, which is also the main reason to keep this veto
lots of examples in the initial veto (like 00:57:110 (1,2,3) - etc) This is a good example and in this post, I can basically jump to a random point in the map and find things like 01:31:488 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - within a few seconds Poor example here though. Everything here snaps to something in the music., which just feels like nonsensical filler rhythm jump spam

1. Spacing concept used leaves little to no room for contrast in spacing and movement to match contrasting elements in the song within many patterns. Contrast in spacing between patterns in certain sections is too minor and disallows differentiation of strong vs. weak beats. Examples can be found within the original veto post, alongside 00:31:164 (1,2,3,1) - mostly mapped to faint bg noise yet huge spacing, 00:36:353 (1,2) - emphasis on red tick with no sound yet is nearly halfway across the screen, 01:05:218 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - which has no emphasis on red ticks yet are 1>2 half-screens.
2. An abundance of overmapping mostly unsupported by the song. A noticeable case is 00:55:650 (3,1,2,3) - where there is no 3/4 in the song, similar to 02:12:191 (2,1,2). 00:57:110 (1,2,3,4) - also an unsupported rhythm as there are no notable sounds on (2), coupled with too high spacing.

diraimur wrote:

you people are trying so hard to kill osu lol

-Mo- wrote:

Spacing concept used leaves little to no room for contrast in spacing and movement to match contrasting elements in the song within many patterns. Contrast in spacing between patterns in certain sections is too minor and disallows differentiation of strong vs. weak beats.

-Mo- wrote:

An abundance of overmapping mostly unsupported by the song.

Lasse wrote:

01:39:110 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - this at least makes more sense now
02:56:785 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - still doesnt even try to represent the 3/4 emphasis in the song through movement or rhythm Does it have to? He decided to make a stream there as a buildup, this is fine? Even if I would not map it like this, I understand why it is mapped the way it is.

well the map is still filled with lots of questionable things, so I'll just sum up the main points again since the replies are getting too convoluted

just looking at rhythms 03:04:244 (1,2,3,4) - makes me question what you're trying to do, it feels like mindless circle spam and according to your replies this won't change and it's basically the whole map. basically makes the whole map feel extremely forced since it's filled with circle jump spam that feels completely out of place If you see this in basically the whole map, maybe that was the idea? I actually think emphasizing the way he did is interesting, it's off-polarity but still carries the same meaning while playing. The thing you say is "forced", I think that's just the style he was going for in the map, because the difficulty is supposed to be difficult, if he'd just do the difficult parts as difficult as they are, there would be complains about PP parts I reckon. The rhythm is not a standard approach, but it makes sense. Since it's consistent in the map, you get used to playing the map that way too.

some other diffs (like Kibbleru's) actually seem to do this much better from the quick look I had, if you want an example for rhythm choice that actually makes sense

rhythm/spacing overall just feels like a mess, looking at things like 03:07:487 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - just being random fullscreen 1-2 jumps, you can't even argue that you wanted to emphasize vocals or whatever, those are focusing on red ticks The emphasis is still on the vocals, he doesn't need to put a click on the vocal when he emphasizes it the way he does in the song, look at the whole map not just at the pattern, the other patterns are made the same way. But about the spacing, yeah I don't really agree with it since if focusing vocals was the goal the spacing should not be as big here as when the pitch really goes high up in the song, that part of the map, I don't understand either, yet I feel it's acceptable since it's an idea he had and he follows it.

then other rhythm things that just make everything unclear for example 01:25:326 (5) - before this you focused on vocals, then suddenly this just switches to drums and completely skips red tick vocal, Agree, the vocal should be emphasized there.[/color] followed by 01:25:326 (5,1,2,3) - being some kind of drum rhythm just to go back to vocals on 01:26:299 (1,2,3,1,2) - which is one of the issues that happens pretty much throughout the whole map Yeah I Agree about the rhythm change although, in some maps you can't always focus the vocals and make it play well, the filler rhythm is okay, you can still change to simple rhythm for a few notes and go back to vocals when it presents the opportunity to do so, that makes the map play much better, focusing solely on vocals and ignoring other stuff is not always the best idea either. Also again, if it happens in entire map, that makes you ready for it, and it's consistent, which is again, fine.

[]
short summary:
overall I still think both spacing and rhythm are fundamentally flawed, which is also the main reason to keep this veto
lots of examples in the initial veto (like 00:57:110 (1,2,3) - etc) Right this example here I don't see a problem, I rather think minimizing the spacing would make it play more awkwardly than it does right now considering the general spacing of the map, that applies to many of those examples you think of. The bigger spacing works in this map, I tried changing to lower and it played completely differently. and in this post, I can basically jump to a random point in the map and find things like 01:31:488 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - within a few seconds, which just feels like nonsensical filler rhythm jump spam Even though I would not space it as much, you just feel it's nonsensical filler rhythm jump spam, but for him it's the idea of how he maps those sections in the song, don't you think a mapper like ProBox thinks of what he is doing, he obviously follows the same logic throughout the map, it might not suit your idea but it's consistent, it plays well and while I don't agree with the spacing I think it's acceptable in a difficult map like this.

-Mo- wrote:

Hello!

One of your beatmaps was recently referred to us for mediation following a Beatmap Nominator veto. The details of the veto can be found here.

After discussion amongst members of the Quality Assurance Team Disqualification Branch, we have decided to uphold the veto. The reasons for this decision are stated briefly below:

1. Spacing concept used leaves little to no room for contrast in spacing and movement to match contrasting elements in the song within many patterns. Contrast in spacing between patterns in certain sections is too minor and disallows differentiation of strong vs. weak beats. Examples can be found within the original veto post, alongside 00:31:164 (1,2,3,1) - mostly mapped to faint bg noise yet huge spacing, 00:36:353 (1,2) - emphasis on red tick with no sound yet is nearly halfway across the screen, 01:05:218 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - which has no emphasis on red ticks yet are 1>2 half-screens.
   
   Contrast is not limited to spacing. There are other ways to create emphasis, and other ways to show groupings. Perhaps you meant "the spacing concept does not utilize enough instances of high/low spacing". If you meant that, to which the solution is increasing the usage of high/low spacing a bit, then we have something to work with. The current analysis ignores other methods of creating emphasis, and also assumes a map requires emphasis at all points. One really big "problem" you might have seen in quaver is it's near complete lack of "emphasis" across multiple jump patterns, regardless of snare placements (listen to hitsounds). This is because with largely-spaced jumps, spacing changes become a lot more problematic for players. The spacing changes aren't as appreciated because players are moving so fast, and changing spacing results in poor flow too, because the player will not be able to maintain a consistent movement, which they need to maintain momentum and play these really big jumps.
   
2. An abundance of overmapping mostly unsupported by the song. A noticeable case is 00:55:650 (3,1,2,3) - where there is no 3/4 in the song, similar to 02:12:191 (2,1,2). 00:57:110 (1,2,3,4) - also an unsupported rhythm as there are no notable sounds on (2), coupled with too high spacing.
   I think there is some merit to this, but as I already mentioned in my response to Lasse, it would greatly benefit this discussion if you guys could clarify that these "abundant instances of overmapping" are directed at only these true overmapping circles, and not other patterns that are being used as filler rhythm. Please refer to my post because it is honestly the #1 reason why everyone's getting confused here. Then again, it doesn't seem like there are abundant cases using those examples as reference. How about you go through the first minute of the song, or half of it, and point out all instances? If you do that, we can immediately get a sense of how to best remedy this issue. And perhaps you might realize there actually aren't as many cases of unsupported notes as you may have thought.

Additional information/discussion points can be found in this post and, as stated previously, in the original veto post.

The beatmap may not be re-nominated at this time until appropriate changes are made that remedy the issues present.

Once changes have been made to the beatmap, both the Nominator who performed the beatmap veto, as well as the QAT members upholding it, will recheck the beatmap and decide individually if the issues have been satisfactorily addressed.

UndeadCapulet wrote:

uh im not gonna touch anything in this thread but i think you should remove the break extensions at 02:38:947 - and 02:46:204 - bc they dont follow anything

best of luck getting this sorted out

The beatmap may not be re-nominated at this time until appropriate changes are made that remedy the issues present.

Once changes have been made to the beatmap, both the Nominator who performed the beatmap veto, as well as the QAT members upholding it, will recheck the beatmap and decide individually if the issues have been satisfactorily addressed.

Bubblun wrote:

The beatmap may not be re-nominated at this time until appropriate changes are made that remedy the issues present.

Once changes have been made to the beatmap, both the Nominator who performed the beatmap veto, as well as the QAT members upholding it, will recheck the beatmap and decide individually if the issues have been satisfactorily addressed.

Can the QAT explain how these new veto rules allow mappers to stand up for themselves? Despite the clear contrast in mapping views between the QAT and some ex-BNs who both provide fair opinions on the map, the mapper is still being forced to apply the vetoed changes; The changes the QAT themselves deemed necessary. I think you guys need to look over the statements (Especially Monstrata's, he explained it really well) and let this map go through as clear corruption is going on. The mediation here was clearly not designed to improve the map, so I feel it's unfair to uphold the veto.

ProfessionalBox wrote:

MaridiuS wrote:

03:14:298 (2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1) - Just asking but I fail to understand what is being followed here. The vocals 03:14:298 (2,4,5) - which are like the only thing remotely intense in this pattern are not emphasized by either spacing or rhythm. 03:14:460 (3) - this note is too quiet to the point that I'm unsure if it's even a hihat.

The part as a whole is more intense because of the transpose that happens at the buildup. As for what I'm following I am following the instruments in the background while catching some of the longer vocals with extended sliders.

Here for example I simply cannot hear the background instruments over the vocals. It took me your reply and more analysis to realize the synth / piano in the editor, how do you assume that players will instantly hear and understand the rhythm over the vocals which are a lot more louder.

MaridiuS wrote:

03:15:271 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - same concern here.

This follows the piano melody on the background that is gradually rising in pitch.

Here it's still vague and goes beyond attention of the player unless mentioned (even then barely to me).

MaridiuS wrote:

The thing is, it doesn't allow them. If the arguments were not compelling enough or the mentioned stuff didn't change, the map is as good as nuked. Although there may be a case in which the community and random guys pressure the QAT so hard they start doubting their choices ;p.

"After discussion amongst members of the Quality Assurance Team Disqualification Branch, we have decided to uphold the veto. The reasons for this decision are stated briefly below:"

Let this sink in, QAT decided that this map is fundamentally flawed not just like 2 people. bunch of people that dont even play the gamemode decided that a map thats way above their comfort level (im not talking about gameplay wise, im actually talking about mapping. obviously they differ.) that a map is fundamentally flawed, therefore it should be! wait what


Also, am too lazy to read the whole thread but since people like to take sides i'd take the QAT one. The fact doesn't change that there are plenty of overmaps (or rather important notes getting the same emphasis as plain hihats) and that base spacing is way too over the top that there's no proper contrast. Some small patterning tweaks are not adequate because they're really small. There is no big difference in patterning or movement for it to be proper contrast because the spacing is just way too big for anything else to be felt as normally as it would on lower spacing. its almost like this map was made to be challenging

"So I as the mapper am not allowed to interpret what I want to contrast? I'm forced to follow kick - snare - kick - snare - kick - snare - kick - snare - kick - snare - loop for the entirety of the map in every pattern I make instead of map the vocals/melody in a generally highly spaced manner like I am currently? "

Generally the problems is that you're not doing the vocals melody emphasis? For example this: 03:07:163 (3) - it's just a plain snare yet it gets emphasis like vocals or melody that you're claiming to follow. There are multiple cases in which you just follow the drums out of nowhere even if they have little or nothing to do with the layer you were following. you can combine multiple layers. other rhythm games do this a lot. its crazy, right?

This follows the piano melody on the background that is gradually rising in pitch.

Here it's still vague and goes beyond attention of the player unless mentioned (even then barely to me).

03:31:974 (5,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - Like if you're claiming to follow the melody/synth or w/e it would only make sense to do sliders on red ticks , or like how you're doing cross screen jumps here 03:37:163 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - excuse me, whats the difference between two of them aside from different symmetry usage? even though white ticks are not a part of the synth, etc. Imo if you're mapping both layers it won't be intuitive and as intense as if you would follow the same layer building up in constant 1/2's . The least you could do is reduce it's spacing by a fair margin in order to make stuff that's pure one layer following and intuitive to everyone be truly emphasized. i think its a common misconseption that you have to completely butcher other layers to emphasise on just one, and a very narrow view on the song overall. Rhythmically human beings struggle at following two layers at once too, you'd either follow one rhythm or the other. 02:29:542 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - this is really nice because its the same layer making it quite intuitive. 03:07:487 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - but this is as spaced as that with overmapping (or rather following 2 layers at once). hello i'm not sure if we are looking at same difficulty but this map supposed to be a challenging map. i just wanted to point that out!

Also a message to everyone that you seem to forget: Just because it's an idea doesn't mean that it's a good or the best one.

:arrow: Generally the problems is that you're not doing the vocals melody emphasis? For example this: 03:07:163 (3) - it's just a plain snare yet it gets emphasis like vocals or melody that you're claiming to follow. There are multiple cases in which you just follow the drums out of nowhere even if they have little or nothing to do with the layer you were following. you can combine multiple layers. other rhythm games do this a lot. its crazy, right?

its almost like this map was made to be challenging

Let this sink in, QAT decided that this map is fundamentally flawed not just like 2 people. bunch of people that dont even play the gamemode decided that a map thats way above their comfort level (im not talking about gameplay wise, im actually talking about mapping. obviously they differ.) that a map is fundamentally flawed, therefore it should be! wait what

"i think you people are looking at the map too narrowly without looking at the big picture. also for the record, ideas kinda lose their meanings if you enforce them, no?"

MaridiuS wrote:

The difference is that in other rhythmic games you use different buttons for different layers. This is all just being pressed with one button (unless you're alting) while if it's not emphasized with rhythm its not neither with patterning or spacing or other forms of emphasis in multiple cases. thats not the case with every rhythm game though, there are ones that do combine multiple layers on same buttons, it's actually more common than you probably think it is

Where'd you get the info that other game modes are interfering? That is not happening and I can assure you. Also I'd appreciate people not attacking people for their rank when there are things being judged here that is not playability, and they can also judge playability to a fair margin. i never said they are bad at the game therefore they shouldn't be a judge, even said not gameplay wise. i meant that some of them don't even actively map/mod to be up to date

Keep in mind that QAT promotes BNs which promote maps, they're the highest on the hierarchy when it comes to map judging and they have the full right to enforce a few concerns if they don't find the arguments good enough. I don't get why you're judging their actions or competence for this, just try to argue against them or try to reach a compromise than complaining as that will not do anything. They didn't get there by doing nothing. i mean obviously they didn't get there by nothing, but does that mean their decisions are always correct? shouldn't people call them out when they disagree with them? are we just forced to accept their opinions just because they are qat and they worked to get that?

"i think you people are looking at the map too narrowly without looking at the big picture. also for the record, ideas kinda lose their meanings if you enforce them, no?"

Ranked section is not for every single mapper's cutesy little ideas otherwise anything can pass?

Maridius wrote:

Let this sink in, QAT decided that this map is fundamentally flawed not just like 2 people.

Nao Tomori wrote:

i dont get why you guys are suddenly complaining about standards being enforced when you were also the ones complaining the most vocally that standards ARENT being enforced...

1. 02:07:650 (1,1,2,3,1,2,3) -
2. 02:18:191 (3,4,5,6,7,1) -
3. 02:20:461 (3,4,1,2,1,2,3,4) -
4. 02:22:083 (5,6,7,1,2) - (angle emphasis)
5. 02:29:542 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - big jumps here are in arguably stronger part of the song, dont see an issue here at all

Nao Tomori wrote:

nvm

i dont get why you guys are suddenly complaining about standards being enforced when you were also the ones complaining the most vocally that standards ARENT being enforced...

MaridiuS wrote:

Keep in mind that QAT promotes BNs which promote maps, they're the highest on the hierarchy when it comes to map judging and they have the full right to enforce a few concerns if they don't find the arguments good enough. They have just as many rights to voice their concerns, but just because they're QAT doesn't mean they're not human. What I mean is, they could collectively screw a map over they don't like because of bias. There could be a mistake. (Maybe one or some of the members didn't completely look at the map.) The other situation I can think of is the QAT members themselves aren't qualified to look at the map. They have the tag, but that doesn't mean they don't have limits or styles they're more comfortable with. I don't get why you're judging their actions or competence for this, just try to argue against them or try to reach a compromise than complaining as that will not do anything. They didn't get there by doing nothing.

Ranked section is not for every single mapper's cutesy little ideas otherwise anything can pass?

Irreversible wrote:

Maridius wrote:

Let this sink in, QAT decided that this map is fundamentally flawed not just like 2 people.

Keeping in mind that everything is "so transparent", I demand that the chat-log to this discussion is publically available. Then we at least truly have a base to discuss on, because I still think that what currently hold the veto is not right. What happened to: BN1 bubbles, BN2 veto, BN1 got blocked, BN3 can "get rid off the veto" if he explains as to why. Now you're telling me that there's something behind the stages where the mapper is being left to some ultimatium?

Irreversible wrote:

While I'd like to skip the spacing statement, I do agree on the overmap on the 3/4. You might be well off to reconsider that, ProBox and see what happens after - because they do have a point here.

Now you're telling me that there's something behind the stages where the mapper is being left to some ultimatium?

PB wrote:

I'm still waiting for the post where the QAT or Lasse lists me all these abundant overmaps that are UNRANKABLE.

ProfessionalBox wrote:

I'm still waiting for the post where the QAT or Lasse lists me all these abundant overmaps that are UNRANKABLE. All the parts that will be linked because of this I will assume are so harmful to the map that I must remove them for the qat to reconsider their choice. Also all the ones left out of this list I will of course have to assume are fine for ranking. I'm very eager to see where the line goes between unrankable and rankable especially in this case.

Myx wrote:

Go by the rule of thumb that fixing the parts that were specifically pointed out (as well as instances where literally the same things are repeated) should be sufficient, unless otherwise mentioned. Best option right now is to make changes that you think are enough and then ask the vetoer and QAT for feedback.

Myxomatosis wrote:

Who would have thought that not everyone agrees on which maps are fine and which shouldn't be ranked? If that'd be the case, vetos and disqualifications for subjective issues wouldn't even need to exist.

The point of mediation isn't that we get into another lengthy discussion about wether the veto is justified or not. The discussions already happened before the mediation, but the mapper and vetoing BN couldn't find an agreement, which is why we even reached this point. People requested more quality assurance from the QAT again and clearer actions taken towards controversial maps, and this is what happens now. Literally the same people who requested that are now complaining about an ultimatum being set to this map, just because the issues we see in this map don't match their understanding of low quality.

Don't get me wrong, it's good that you are discussing the map and the issues of it (even though it's likely not going to impact the mediation, as it was an unanimous decision coming from 6 QAT members and the point is that it should get fixed) but complaining about the system itself here is dumb, please stop it.




Regarding what was requested:

Providing chatlogs would be pretty useless as there wasn't much discussion at all. We judged the veto seperately first and voted, and the vote was unanimous, so there was no need for lots of discussion. Basically we all agreed on the vetoing post and what else was posted here, nobody had any objections from what I recall.

ProfessionalBox wrote:

I'm still waiting for the post where the QAT or Lasse lists me all these abundant overmaps that are UNRANKABLE. All the parts that will be linked because of this I will assume are so harmful to the map that I must remove them for the qat to reconsider their choice. Also all the ones left out of this list I will of course have to assume are fine for ranking. I'm very eager to see where the line goes between unrankable and rankable especially in this case.

Go by the rule of thumb that fixing the parts that were specifically pointed out (as well as instances where literally the same things are repeated) should be sufficient, unless otherwise mentioned. Best option right now is to make changes that you think are enough and then ask the vetoer and QAT for feedback.

-Mo- wrote:

1. Spacing concept used leaves little to no room for contrast in spacing and movement to match contrasting elements in the song within many patterns. Contrast in spacing between patterns in certain sections is too minor and disallows differentiation of strong vs. weak beats. Examples can be found within the original veto post, alongside 00:31:164 (1,2,3,1) - mostly mapped to faint bg noise yet huge spacing, 00:36:353 (1,2) - emphasis on red tick with no sound yet is nearly halfway across the screen, 01:05:218 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - which has no emphasis on red ticks yet are 1>2 half-screens.
2. An abundance of overmapping mostly unsupported by the song. A noticeable case is 00:55:650 (3,1,2,3) - where there is no 3/4 in the song, similar to 02:12:191 (2,1,2). 00:57:110 (1,2,3,4) - also an unsupported rhythm as there are no notable sounds on (2), coupled with too high spacing.

Hula wrote:

i tried to understand this drama, but i can't. Can someone kindly tl;dr it for me please?

Spacing concept used leaves little to no room for contrast in spacing and movement to match contrasting elements in the song within many patterns. Contrast in spacing between patterns in certain sections is too minor and disallows differentiation of strong vs. weak beats. Examples can be found within the original veto post, alongside 00:31:164 (1,2,3,1) - mostly mapped to faint bg noise yet huge spacing, 00:36:353 (1,2) - emphasis on red tick with no sound yet is nearly halfway across the screen, 01:05:218 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - which has no emphasis on red ticks yet are 1>2 half-screens.

An abundance of overmapping mostly unsupported by the song. A noticeable case is 00:55:650 (3,1,2,3) - where there is no 3/4 in the song, similar to 02:12:191 (2,1,2). 00:57:110 (1,2,3,4) - also an unsupported rhythm as there are no notable sounds on (2), coupled with too high spacing.

1. missing kicks (normal-hitnormal): 00:30:515 - 02:13:974 - 03:07:487 - 03:30:190 - 03:37:325 -
   
2. missing drum-finishes: 02:50:190 - (maybe u could add it at 02:50:460 - idk it kinda gives u some feedback when hitting that)
   
   
   
3. hs copier killed ur muted sliderends so u should like reapply them manually (examples 01:56:623 (1,1,2,3) - 03:17:704 (1,1,1,1) - 03:39:758 (1,2,1,2) -)
   
4. 02:36:110 - i think the piano starts playing at 02:36:191 -, so maybe remove the whistle at 02:36:110 -to follow that more accurately? (and also i'd say move the sampleset changing green line to 02:36:028 - or 02:36:191 - cause having sampeset change randomly on a blue tick sounds rly off)
   
5. 02:26:947 - are u sure about kick+snare hs here? moving the kick to 02:26:623 - seems much better cause of kick snare kick snare pattern
   
6. 03:01:649 - 03:01:812 - why are these missing kick/snare hitsounds when u put them on 03:01:001 - 03:01:163 - 03:01:325 - with the exact same sounds?

1. 02:38:298 - Would suggest making the break start consistent for all diffs that have it, since it seems a shame to not do so when you can. If not, at least snap it correctly on Fuccho's diff.

1. 03:03:595 (1) - This slider isn't being supported by anything and it's even inconsistent with the first Kiai. It's barely starting on any sound and the only thing emphasizing the strong beat is the slider tick. Would be a lot better if you could do the same thing here as what've done to the first Kiai.

1. 03:01:650 (4) - Appears to be missing NC.

1. 02:18:678 (1,2) - Swapping NCs here would fit better imo.
2. 03:44:298 (3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,1) - Same as Kibb and top diff. Snare(?) sounds aren't emphasised well with full stream, and I prefer previous sections 02:01:002 (1,2,3,4,1,2,1).

1. 03:44:298 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1) - Similar to top diff, the snare (?) sounds aren't really emphasised nicely with a full stream. I liked what was done with the kick sliders in previous sections better 02:01:164 (3,4,1,2,3,4).

1. 02:32:785 (3) - 02:33:596 (3) - 02:59:380 (3) - 03:00:191 (3) - Would just remove these since it seems the drums are being prioritised for this section, and there just aren't any for these notes. I do think these are more fun to play if the 1/1 gaps are followed in the music.
2. 03:06:028 - Wouldn't suggest missing this vocal beat with the extended slider, since it is pretty significant to me.
3. 03:32:299 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - Makes more sense to make the jumps increase with the pitch rather than doing the opposite like you did here.

1. 03:19:164 (1,2,3) - Auto-stacking made this look terrible.

1. 01:31:326 (4) - Would consider moving this to around (10, 324) so it's similar to 01:23:542 (3), and I think halting to movement here seems a little out of place.

1. 00:44:623 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - 02:01:164 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - I do think these would be better if the (snare? whatever you hitsounded the finishes to) would be highlighted better, since a full stream doesn't really represents those sounds very well, especially for 00:44:785 (3). 03:44:298 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) is slightly better, if only 3 was the actual corner rather than in the middle of the curve.
2. 01:18:839 (3) - Appears to be missing a whistle.
3. 01:44:137 (1) - Seems like an NC mistake? Single object combo seems out of place here.
4. 03:27:109 - Would aim to make this a clickable beat since most of the other synth(?) sounds for similar sections were clickable. I can understand switching it if there was a vocal sound like the slider after this, but there isn't one here so.

Hi there, me and multiple nominators and QAT have some concerns about your mapset and things that might improve overall quality, including several wrongly snapped notes, inconsistencies and readability/flow suggestions. Please make sure to look at everything below:

These must be 1/6, and they're using 1/4 on almost every difficulty:

On almost every diff: 00:25:326 - 01:19:812 - 01:41:866 - 02:37:001 - 03:02:947 - 03:25:001 -

As for these, they are all 1/6:

FreyBox's Adagio: 00:35:380 (4,5,6) - 01:51:920 (4,5,6) - 03:35:055 (3,4,5) - 02:07:650 (1,2,3) - 02:12:839 (2) - 02:28:407 (3,4) -


Haruto's Adagietto: 00:35:380 (4,5,6) - 01:51:920 (3,4,5) - 03:35:055 (3,4,5) -


eLy's Andante: 02:07:650 (1,2,3) - 01:11:704 (5,6) - (should be like 02:28:245 (2))


Kalirink's Andantino: 01:11:867 (4,5) -


Joey's Moderato: 00:35:380 (4,5,6) - 01:51:920 (4,5,6) - 03:35:055 (4,5,6) - 01:11:866 (1,2) - 02:28:407 (1,2) - 02:12:839 (3) -


Assing's Allegretto: 00:35:380 (4) - 01:51:921 (4) - 03:35:055 (3,4,5) - 02:37:001 (1,2) - (should be like 01:19:813 (1)) 01:41:867 (1,2,3,4) - (should be like 03:25:001 (1,2)) 01:11:867 (1,2) - 02:28:407 (1,2) -


Kibbleru's Allegro: The intro has multiple incorrect snapping, such as: 00:04:407 (2,3,4) - 00:06:028 (5,6,7,8) - 00:11:461 (2,3,4,1) - 00:14:785 (1,2,3) - 00:22:245 (2,3,4) - 00:25:326 (3) -

not in the intro: 00:35:380 (1,2,3) - 01:51:920 (3,4,5) - 03:35:055 (3,4,5) - 01:41:866 (1,2,3,4) -


Flasxis' Vivace: 00:35:380 (3,4,5) - 01:51:921 (3,4,5) - 03:35:055 (3) - 01:11:867 (2,3) - 02:07:731 (1) - 01:41:867 (1,2) and 00:25:326 (1,2) - (should be just like 03:25:001 (1,2))

General

02:38:298 - Would suggest making the break start consistent for all diffs that have it, since it seems a shame to not do so when you can. If not, at least snap it correctly on Fuccho's diff. Sure


Larghissimo
03:03:595 (1) - This slider isn't being supported by anything and it's even inconsistent with the first Kiai. It's barely starting on any sound and the only thing emphasizing the strong beat is the slider tick. Would be a lot better if you could do the same thing here as what've done to the first Kiai. This is exactly the rhythm of the first kiai though? I can make this have a unique solution of its own but the way it currently is, is exactly the rhythm of how first kiai begins.


Joey's Moderato
03:01:650 (4) - Appears to be missing NC. Can fix


Assing's Allegretto
02:18:678 (1,2) - Swapping NCs here would fit better imo. Makes sense
03:44:298 (3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,1) - Same as Kibb and top diff. Snare(?) sounds aren't emphasised well with full stream, and I prefer previous sections 02:01:002 (1,2,3,4,1,2,1). Here the song intensity is different because of the transpose which would explain the choice behind fully mapping this as a stream unlike in the example you provided. What you are pointing out here has already been discussed in the initial veto and something the QAT already approved of. Bringing this up again is therefore pointless and I will just refer to this response for similar cases in case they happen in this mod.


Kibbleru's Allegro
03:44:298 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1) - Similar to top diff, the snare (?) sounds aren't really emphasised nicely with a full stream. I liked what was done with the kick sliders in previous sections better 02:01:164 (3,4,1,2,3,4). Refer to post in Assing's Allegretto.


wkyik's Allegrissimo
02:32:785 (3) - 02:33:596 (3) - 02:59:380 (3) - 03:00:191 (3) - Would just remove these since it seems the drums are being prioritised for this section, and there just aren't any for these notes. I do think these are more fun to play if the 1/1 gaps are followed in the music. Makes sense
03:06:028 - Wouldn't suggest missing this vocal beat with the extended slider, since it is pretty significant to me. Skipping this is fine imo
03:32:299 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - Makes more sense to make the jumps increase with the pitch rather than doing the opposite like you did here. Makes sense


Irre's Vivacissimo
03:19:164 (1,2,3) - Auto-stacking made this look terrible. Manual stack is better I agree


Fuccho's Presto
01:31:326 (4) - Would consider moving this to around (10, 324) so it's similar to 01:23:542 (3), and I think halting to movement here seems a little out of place. Agree


Prestissimo
00:44:623 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - 02:01:164 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - I do think these would be better if the (snare? whatever you hitsounded the finishes to) would be highlighted better, since a full stream doesn't really represents those sounds very well, especially for 00:44:785 (3). 03:44:298 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) is slightly better, if only 3 was the actual corner rather than in the middle of the curve. Refer to post on Assing's Allegretto
01:18:839 (3) - Appears to be missing a whistle. Yup
01:44:137 (1) - Seems like an NC mistake? Single object combo seems out of place here. Yup
03:27:109 - Would aim to make this a clickable beat since most of the other synth(?) sounds for similar sections were clickable. I can understand switching it if there was a vocal sound like the slider after this, but there isn't one here so. The vocals are more imporant to me here so that's why it's not clickable as to make the vocal rhythm more natural

Monstrata wrote:

Huh, no one's getting worked up xD. Just explaining why the issue Kuron brought up was incorrect, since ProBox's response didn't really address why 1/4 snapping is preferred over 1/6 in general.

Kuron-kun wrote:

a

I honestly didn't even think anyone had replied to this thread yet so I didn't say anything gsdgnaslkjdnhgasdkga

it's okay, I just tried to compile everything and post stuff here, but if I said something that sounded wrong, my bad then, this is not a veto or anything

Monstrata wrote:

Huh, no one's getting worked up xD.