That's kinda stupid... [Extra] is the collab difficulty, it CAN'T be deleted <_<mikhe wrote:
Easy solution, delete Extra; impossible in CtB -.-
Ranked please, not approved!!
Yes, you said me -3-Beuchi-chan wrote:
That's kinda stupid... [Extra] is the collab difficulty, it CAN'T be deleted <_<mikhe wrote:
Easy solution, delete Extra; impossible in CtB -.-
Ranked please, not approved!!
Anyways, awesome map! *star*
FIX this thing now!Lybydose wrote:
Normal:
02:23:009 (2,3) - WHAT
The whole map was supposed to be in Black and White for teh best effect. You are lucky it's grey and not B/W. Also, the cursor coloring is more effective if you want to find out when is your turn.Layola wrote:
You guys couldn't pick better colors? They blend right into the video and it's annoying as hell to sightread this. The grey is also horrible for tag.
Are we sure we want to have multiple timings at 138 to re-align the song? Is it entirely necessary? I think I have to make it clear that for a techno song like this, there is seriously no reason to keep altering the BPM because for crying out loud they're not rock numbers. If you can't get a clean BPM out of it, then either the mp3 itself, or the timing given is not good enough imo.Cyclone wrote:
I'm going to request unrank again due to timing.
Offset: 1,328ms BPM: 138.00
Offset: 126,556ms BPM: 138.00
Offset: 194,425ms BPM: 138.00
Before you start questioning this, try it. I set those like that for a few different reasons. Those reasons are probably why you had a BPM of 137.98. I think what I suggest here is pretty damn good after several tests.SPOILER[attachment=0:13448]apple.JPG[/attachment:13448]
This was pointed out BEFORE it was ranked the first time. No one bothered to check. Not only did YOU not read the thread or spend the three seconds it takes to check for unsnapped notes, neither did TWO BATS and whomever else made this map (one of which is also a BAT). This is all in addition to the timing being atrocious in the first place.Ephemeral wrote:
I was told to do nothing but fix the occluded slider in Extra.
So that's all I did.
One is unsnapped in Lunatic yes, it's ugly and I want to fix it, but the difference it makes when it is snapped is so utterly negligible that it is just flat out retarded to unrank it again just to fix that.
And the people complaining about the etna slider in normal are silly.
Either way, I'm glad people are enjoying this as much as they apparently are. It was fun working with everybody to create the map in the first place - it's great to see everybody else seems to be enjoying it as much as we enjoyed making it.
JInxyjem wrote:
Naziing the Nazier's difficulty because I can.
00:34:37 (2) - Make this by selecting (1) and flipping a copy of it horizontally and vertically.
00:34:80 (3) - Same.
00:35:45 (4) - Same, but flip 90 deg anti-clockwise when you are done.
02:09:82 (4) - One grid to the left
02:26:56 (4) - Slider end one grid to the right.
Modding Rena's difficulty, because theres something weird.
Lower volume of hitsounds much? I heard quite a loud boomboomboomboom for the part around Pach/Remi.
00:30:89 (8) - WTH? It ends 1/2 a tick too late.
Pasonia wrote:
Eh, I didn't expect to have to do this.
Lunatic:
00:28:403 (1,2,1,2,1,1) - This, and possibly similar 1/3 elements have been snapped to 1/4, apparently because of the BPM revision I recommended. As such, please fix this and any other similar 1/3s that may be in Lunatic.
Lybydose wrote:
Lunatic:
00:29:020 (1) - this is not snapped. It's like waaaay off not snapped even.
00:30:090 (8) - this slider return is synced to...nothing?
Normal:
02:23:009 (2,3) - WHAT
what the hell is this timing
You didn't try it did you. That's all I asked. Obviously i expected this argument, but please do my simple request beforehand...Pasonia wrote:
Are we sure we want to have multiple timings at 138 to re-align the song? Is it entirely necessary? I think I have to make it clear that for a techno song like this, there is seriously no reason to keep altering the BPM because for crying out loud they're not rock numbers. If you can't get a clean BPM out of it, then either the mp3 itself, or the timing given is not good enough imo.Cyclone wrote:
Before you start questioning this, try it.
Also, if you must hear me say this I entirely disagree with James' timing of 138BPM even on his original map.
We used timing extremely similar to the one you have supplied when initially creating the map. There is negligible difference between the one standardized timing section that we are currently using and the ones you supplied - with the added bonus that the standardized one doesn't require us to switch timing sections in the middle of a chorus.Cyclone wrote:
Fine i'll tell you the results of my probably over an hour of testing. After checking for a while, i noticed my timing slipping gradually as i went. I tried an even BPM and used an offset recommended to me by fluffrat. After doing that i was getting 0 to 2 ms off THE ENTIRE TIME, up until the EXACT point where i have the 2nd section. At that point, i went off. Quick. Quite a curious thing to have your timing go to hell like that for no reason. I placed a new section there with a new offset, and it turned out the be the appropriate solution to keep myself at 0 to 2 ms off THE ENTIRE TIME, all the way up to the end. When i got past the final break (testing on [hard]) the timing again seemed to be WAY the fuck off, but even more so this time. +10? +20? +30? I don't even remember the final number i used, but it got me back to being within 0-3 ms (yes, i feel another whole ms off)
Yes it's a techno song, and yes it should have an even BPM, but we don't know what the fuck goes on when these things are edited. Indulge me. Test it and see how it feels. I can assure you that what is ranked should have never been though.
And the added disadvantage that the timing you used is WRONG. My accuracy is horrible (93-94%) on NORMAL with a good 45-50% mistimed hits using the ranked timing settings, but when I switch to Cyclone's I magically get 100%. I guess my skill just suddenly went up?Ephemeral wrote:
We used timing extremely similar to the one you have supplied when initially creating the map. There is negligible difference between the one standardized timing section that we are currently using and the ones you supplied - with the added bonus that the standardized one doesn't require us to switch timing sections in the middle of a chorus.
Unranking this AGAIN over something that pretty much every normal player will never notice is just counterproductive. The map is fine. Leave it be.
I have no trouble SS'ing normal with the current timing.Lybydose wrote:
And the added disadvantage that the timing you used is WRONG. My accuracy is horrible (93-94%) on NORMAL with a good 45-50% mistimed hits using the ranked timing settings, but when I switch to Cyclone's I magically get 100%. I guess my skill just suddenly went up?Ephemeral wrote:
We used timing extremely similar to the one you have supplied when initially creating the map. There is negligible difference between the one standardized timing section that we are currently using and the ones you supplied - with the added bonus that the standardized one doesn't require us to switch timing sections in the middle of a chorus.
Unranking this AGAIN over something that pretty much every normal player will never notice is just counterproductive. The map is fine. Leave it be.
It doesn't matter who or what notices it, the fact that you find faulty timing in a MUSIC GAME acceptable is what's appalling here.
Well yeah the Overall Difficulty is so low that you can be like half a second off and still get 300. Try testing at 8 or 9 OA.Ephemeral wrote:
I have no trouble SS'ing normal with the current timing.
Neither do lots of other people, apparently.
Looks like we're at an impasse.
Normal isn't going to be played at 8 or 9 QA now is it?Lybydose wrote:
Well yeah the Overall Difficulty is so low that you can be like half a second off and still get 300. Try testing at 8 or 9 OA.Ephemeral wrote:
I have no trouble SS'ing normal with the current timing.
Neither do lots of other people, apparently.
Looks like we're at an impasse.
And Lunatic IS going to be played at 8 or 9 OA isn't it now? So how about I play with Hidden mod (no cheating and looking at approach circles) enabled at 8 OA and compare the results at the different timing settings? The only changes made to the map were:Ephemeral wrote:
Normal isn't going to be played at 8 or 9 QA now is it?
I see your point, but even at those ranges the timing doesn't noticeably affect my play.
Believe me, I was iffy about this timing shit when Pasonia proposed it the first time, but it works.
I think the fact that this has surpassed 10k plays and there's only been three or four complaints about the timing to my knowledge speaks volumes.
Give me a few minutes, I'm still doing some testing and it involves switching back and forth between two versions of the map. Also I lost the replays, so now I have to play it twice more.Ephemeral wrote:
Upload the .osr for your normal attempt that you referenced there, would you kindly?
I'd like to see it first hand.
Ranked.VanMoNky wrote:
This map is ranked or approved?
If it ranked, why this..?DJPop wrote:
Ranked.VanMoNky wrote:
This map is ranked or approved?
VanMoNky wrote:
If it ranked, why this..?Full Beatmap Information wrote:
Please note that this beatmap is approved, not ranked. It will not be counted towards your score!
Gabi wrote:
the EXTRA diff is approved though im pretty sure
Better or otherwise, it seems utterly stupid to unrank this again just to insert another set of timing that for 99% of the players, will achieve exactly the same effect as the previous timing had.Cyclone wrote:
I'm telling you, the current timing is WRONG. It is WRONG, which means there's a problem. It is NOT close enough. I try not to BELIEVE in close enough. 5ms isn't even close enough for me. I can tell if my timing is off even if i hit 300 for the entire song. If you CAN"T tell the difference, just trust me. I'm damn confidant in my timing. The changes i suggest are significant enough so that it should be noticeable.
That being said i think the 3rd section i suggest might be just a little late.
I can make a map 1000 BPM with 1/8 snap and map by ear, and 99% of people wouldn't notice (if it weren't for the osu! button). That doesn't mean I should do it though.Ephemeral wrote:
Better or otherwise, it seems utterly stupid to unrank this again just to insert another set of timing that for 99% of the players, will achieve exactly the same effect as the previous timing had.Cyclone wrote:
I'm telling you, the current timing is WRONG. It is WRONG, which means there's a problem. It is NOT close enough. I try not to BELIEVE in close enough. 5ms isn't even close enough for me. I can tell if my timing is off even if i hit 300 for the entire song. If you CAN"T tell the difference, just trust me. I'm damn confidant in my timing. The changes i suggest are significant enough so that it should be noticeable.
That being said i think the 3rd section i suggest might be just a little late.
While you can find issue with it and I respect your obvious expertise in timing, I can't discern any difference between your timing and the one already there.