ok.jpg :c
edit : hype!
edit : hype!
forum
Shintani Ryoko - Wonderful World
posted
Total Posts
235
Um, why did nobody actually wait for me to check on the stacking issue? Ill probably dq again if I find things that need to be adjusted still. Stay tuned.
rest in fucking peace
rofl
let's count how many times rumia will qualify this map before it gets ranked
lol.Garven wrote:
Um, why did nobody actually wait for me to check on the stacking issue? Ill probably dq again if I find things that need to be adjusted still. Stay tuned.
Everything else you pointed out needs to be manually stacked since that would be the expected visual with such tight consecutive object positioning.HanzeR wrote:
Patterns that are ruined by stack leniencyGarven wrote:
First you should ask why is it set that low? While I see a lot of overlapping patterns, there are some notes that should be stacking that aren't at this low leniency (mainly looking at consecutive 1/2 notes such as 00:49:448 (1,2) - ). Please point out the patterns that are messed up due to having stack leniency even at the lowest in-editor setting and we can work out how to fix the parts that need to be manually adjusted after we set the stack leniency to the highest possible setting while preserving what your goal is for the map's presentation.
These patterns would all be ruined by any setting above 0.1
01:05:159 (1,2) -
01:05:417 (3,4) -
03:39:877 (1,1,1,1,1) - this pattern is completely ruined by any stack setting This is the only pattern that warrants the use of the low stack leniency due to 03:40:912 (1) - .
03:58:692 (2,3) -
03:58:951 (4,5) -
03:59:209 (6,7) -
03:59:468 (1,2) -
03:59:727 (3,4) -
03:59:985 (5,6) -
04:00:244 (7,8) -
04:00:502 (1,2) -
04:01:020 (4,5) -
04:02:830 (3,4) -
04:03:089 (5,6) -
04:03:347 (7,8) -
04:03:606 (1,2) -
04:03:865 (3,4) -
04:04:123 (5,6) -
04:04:382 (7,8) -
04:04:640 (1,2) -
04:05:158 (4,5) -
04:05:416 (6,7) -
04:05:675 (8,9) -
04:07:227 (3,4) -
04:07:485 (5,6) -
04:07:744 (7,8) -
04:08:002 (1,2) -
04:08:261 (3,4) -
04:08:520 (5,6) -
04:08:778 (1,2) -
04:09:296 (4,5) -
04:09:554 (6,7) -
04:09:813 (1,2) -
04:10:330 (4,5) -
oops
;w;
;w;
..
well..
they're still clearly readable without the offset stacking, expected visual doesn't mean required visual
wut?
WTF...
i don't have any difficulty to read those pattern actually ;w;
;w; rip
Topic Starter
It may not be the expected visual but it was the intended visual. As you might notice every note in this map was very deliberately placed and I wanted to keep it looking as clean as possible. The perfectly overlapping notes caused by the lack of stack leniency was completely intentional as it makes the patterns look cleaner without random stacking everywhere. I didn't see anywhere in the ranking rules where it says stacking is a requirement, and so far no one else has had any problem with the way notes are stacked in this map.Garven wrote:
Everything else you pointed out needs to be manually stacked since that would be the expected visual with such tight consecutive object positioning.HanzeR wrote:
Patterns that are ruined by stack leniency
These patterns would all be ruined by any setting above 0.1
01:05:159 (1,2) -
01:05:417 (3,4) -
03:39:877 (1,1,1,1,1) - this pattern is completely ruined by any stack setting This is the only pattern that warrants the use of the low stack leniency due to 03:40:912 (1) - .
03:58:692 (2,3) -
03:58:951 (4,5) -
03:59:209 (6,7) -
03:59:468 (1,2) -
03:59:727 (3,4) -
03:59:985 (5,6) -
04:00:244 (7,8) -
04:00:502 (1,2) -
04:01:020 (4,5) -
04:02:830 (3,4) -
04:03:089 (5,6) -
04:03:347 (7,8) -
04:03:606 (1,2) -
04:03:865 (3,4) -
04:04:123 (5,6) -
04:04:382 (7,8) -
04:04:640 (1,2) -
04:05:158 (4,5) -
04:05:416 (6,7) -
04:05:675 (8,9) -
04:07:227 (3,4) -
04:07:485 (5,6) -
04:07:744 (7,8) -
04:08:002 (1,2) -
04:08:261 (3,4) -
04:08:520 (5,6) -
04:08:778 (1,2) -
04:09:296 (4,5) -
04:09:554 (6,7) -
04:09:813 (1,2) -
04:10:330 (4,5) -
Since stacking isn't an unrankable issue and only a cosmetic opinion I would like to move forward in re-ranking this map without having to destroy any more patterns. I hope we can come to an agreement on this.
00:33:672 (2) - touches screen border in extra https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/2738831
I don't mean to kill the hype any further but Silynn's Hard needs extreme attention for flow and quality reasons. I was in communication with HanzeR and Silynn on this in the event this got DQ'd and it's ultimately his (HanzeR's) decision where he wants to go with that. Just posting this here as a reminder.
Topic Starter
Yeahhhhhh I told Silynn I would give him a chance to respond to the changes I made to his diff since he's gone so I'm going to wait for that now ^^Horo wrote:
I don't mean to kill the hype any further but Silynn's Hard needs extreme attention for flow and quality reasons. I was in communication with HanzeR and Silynn on this in the event this got DQ'd and it's ultimately his (HanzeR's) decision where he wants to go with that. Just posting this here as a reminder.
Ill explain thIngs further when I return. Im out travelling for the next couple of days anyway, and I believe there were a couple people that expressed interest in modding before it was ninja reranked.
yeahh. it has alot of spacing inconsistencies >_>Horo wrote:
I don't mean to kill the hype any further but Silynn's Hard needs extreme attention for flow and quality reasons. I was in communication with HanzeR and Silynn on this in the event this got DQ'd and it's ultimately his (HanzeR's) decision where he wants to go with that. Just posting this here as a reminder.
:<
rip hanzy, maybe I can help with the requalification.
Topic Starter
I look forward to hearing your reasoningGarven wrote:
Ill explain thIngs further when I return. Im out travelling for the next couple of days anyway, and I believe there were a couple people that expressed interest in modding before it was ninja reranked.
So RL has been kicking my ass of late and I haven't been able to get to this - my apologies. Basically I would be looking at the consecutive hit circles in the same place that aren't stacking and show screens of manual stacks that would still look fine. Try just having them scoot one grid each aligned within the cusp of the pattern surrounding it.
wew took way too long enough tho
val0108 wrote:
where garven
where rerank
inverness wrote:
where rerank
[ Setsuna ] wrote:
inverness wrote:
where rerank
;_;
Flask wrote:
;_;
i was F2ing and came across this map, updated to "latest pending version" and gave it another play--imagine my surprise when i came to the thread to see 13 pages / rank / unrank. i legit had no idea LOL; haven't checked this thread since the last time i posted in it... two years ago
i miss you hanzer, hope you're doing great wherever you are now \o/
i miss you hanzer, hope you're doing great wherever you are now \o/