1. osu! forums
  2. Beatmaps
  3. Beatmap Graveyard

show more
posted
honestly i had no idea how far had the ranking or qualifying system had become and how things work so i'll just let it flow i guess

Desperate-kun wrote:

After internal discussion, we decided to disqualify this mapset over the following concerns.

[apoplexy_]

All of the issues below apply to the first part of the collab, mapped by inverness.

Some of the rhythms need improvement in terms of circle-slider composition, as they don't reflect the song's rhythm well. For example, 00:51:449 (1,2,3,4) - would make more sense like this: http://puu.sh/hrEG1/491fbcdb6c.jpg as the two beats emphasized by the song here, 00:51:878 and 00:52:163 -, would both be clickable then. It will make the pattern play more intuitively.
Other examples:
00:53:163 (1,2,3,4) -
00:58:306 (1,2,3,4) -
01:05:163 (1,2,3,4) -

i don't really see your point between bad song reflection (or whatever you call it) with the patterns themselves. judging from your suggestion, is it because the sliders didn't start on white ticks or something? also for the emphasis beats you stated, if those are really emphasis, you missed 00:51:735 - which basically sounds the same like the emphasis beats as you stated. therefore, it's not really an emphasis, at least for me. my patterns worked out well, considering everyone didn't really see them as much of an issue.

01:20:306 (3,4,1) - While these kind of 1/4 jumps are generally a nice and challenging gimmick, some of them happen to not play very smoothly due to weird transitions, which makes them unpleasant to play. Examples would be:
01:28:020 (3,4,1) -
01:21:163 (3,4,1) -

these are not 1/4 lol
please enlighten me on what you said by "weird transition" and "unpleasant gameplay" because again, nobody (including me) had any problems whatsoever with it


[Normal]

Be careful with short multiple-repeat sliders. As they are very short, players of this level are not able to read when the slider will end. Therefore, the patterns involving them need to have simple, easily readable placement, that doesn't involve going back over the slidertrack, stacking or anything similar. Examples:
01:21:735 (5,1) -
02:43:735 (6,1) -

Additionally, there are some tiny spacing errors in this difficulty, sometimes caused by stacking, that make objects touch each other slightly although they are not supposed to, which should be fixed to avoid confusion and to make the map more polished. Examples:
00:53:163 (1,2) -
01:30:878 (4,5) -

Sorry that it took so long. We wish you the best of luck with your mapset!


waiting for wendao to look over his parts
oh and some patterns on normal somehow lost a bit of the hitsounds, i'll handle that

bu,per: yeah the wubs are snapped onto 1/4 like desperate kun said
posted
BNs can't make up their minds of when to qualify a map?
posted
because they're to "cool"
posted
@inverness

Sorry, yes ofc they are snapped to 1/6, not to 1/4 (the ones mentioned in the disqualification reason).
posted
masih di sekolah gw... :^(

sorry for the disqualification
posted
you can't be serious

EDIT: it appears like it's never too late to give feedback... and boooy, i think it really does need some. lol i could have actually mapped a diff by now.

Yes, I might just have about 1000pp, but that doesn't mean I can't play this diff. I've played it up to here with not many problems and found it surprisingly comfortable to play. I happen to have just about enough playing experience to be able to give my gameplay-based opinion about this map. And if I've seen correctly the past half year, ranking maps is based on how well they play, correct? Well, at least allow me to contribute to this.


02:26:878 (2,1) - This is painful to play. What I'd do is a triple on a slider instead. Something like this maybe. If necessary, increase spacing from (3) to (4) and accordingly to next (1).
02:28:592 (5,1) - This is even more painful.. ow it hurts. I see your thought why it's not just a five-objects stream but instead ending with a slider, because you can hear that sound in the music as well. The problem is, you need to hold the cursor on the slider since it's facing left, but the next object is on the right side. It'll be a lot better to make a blanket out of it, like this.
02:32:592 (1,2,3,1) - Liked this pattern! cool job!
02:34:592 (2,1) - Questionable spacing... I'm not gonna say anything about it other than it's questionable since it's still sort of playable.
02:35:163 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,1) - I dislike the spacing here and the direction the stream is leading. 02:34:735 (1,2) - These objects suggest cursor movement towards the lower center of the playfield. If that stream were to be Ctrl G'd and accordingly spaced, it'd go down in the twinkling of an eye. I'd make it less curved as well, in that case. It's quite playable nonetheless, but I'm on about the looks instead.
02:36:735 (2,1) - I would have preferred a triple leading into (1).
02:40:306 (1) - I do not see reason at all why this shouldn't be a circle. It's just making the pattern more complicated than it has to be. Explain please?
02:40:735 (1,2,3) - This looks, feels and plays out of place. The distance from (2) to (3) is truly exaggerated in comparison to the combo before and in my opinion is not justified.
02:41:592 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - I find this pattern extra-ordinarily bad since it's deliberately inversely arranged, facing in one direction and having a triple at the end where the pattern started, with the SAME time gap between the objects. I would have instead applied a triangle structure, leaving the player to less complicated jump, like this.
02:42:878 (1,1) - This is antijumping at its finest... not. This is completely counter-intuitive to the player's anticipation and looks bad.
02:42:306 (7,1,2,3,1) - Doesn't play well for me either. Don't know about others, I'm solely sure about myself.
02:46:306 (1,2,3,4,1) - The triple is facing a different way than the general flow is (next pattern).
02:46:735 (1,2,3,1) - The flow issue from before results here in troubling gameplay as the cursor is required to move precisely here.
02:49:592 (3) - I would have loved to see this as a circle instead. And tbh I don't see reason why this shouldn't be a circle. I see more reason against making it a slider, since it's pausing cursor movement, however briefly.
02:50:163 (1,2,3,4,1,2,1,2,1,2) - Neat idea here, though!
02:52:306 (1,2,3,4) - Emphasis is put on wrong points with wrong objects. I would have just left six circles here, 2x3 circles (as in, 2 combos à 3 circles). Maybe like this. It really doesn't matter what way you arrange (triangles or unfinished squares) or space them (3 circles even, jump, 3 circles even, another jump to next combo).
02:58:306 (1,1) - I dislike playing this pattern due to the second slider ending waaay somewhere else, as in, not anywhere near the next slider start.
02:59:163 (1,2,3) - TBH, Ctrl G on this plays better imo.
03:01:735 (1,1,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3) - Wonderful pattern! =^-^=

Also liked how uncomplicatedly Hanzer's part went down, nice job overall on the diff!
posted
applied all

http://puu.sh/htHvd.zip

Charles445 wrote:

This sounds 10 ms early right now
Prolly needs online offset set
checked with TimingAnalyzer by statementreply

seems like +7 is the best
posted
Please note that all of my suggestions are parts that I don't feel are enjoyable to play.

01:19:735 (1,2,3,4,1) - The relatively small SV just makes this kinda, meh. But the non-logical 1/6 jump just ruined it for me. It feels really really awkward and anti-intuitive, the spacing here makes no sense, I'd understand if 4 was stacked on 1 since it would be more intuitive to play (same goes for the same pattern in later parts of this kiai)

01:24:020 (5,6,1) - Not really gameplay related, but all of 3 slider tails have unnecessary inherited points?

01:24:592 (1) - A slider really ruins it, I am not sure how to describe the sound the slider lands on, but the sound is the same both on slider head and tail. Two circles or two shorter sliders would feel so much better and satisfying to play.

01:31:735 (1,2,3) - It's cool and yeah, but I don't think it is enjoyable in the current spacing and 1/6 gaps.

01:38:020 (2,3) - 1/6 sliders will play much better, how can you not want to press on the WUBS rather then have the slider end on them?

I agree with most of what Lizzy mentioned but pointing it twice is pointless, I love this map a lot, hopefully I can help to make it even more enjoyable.

Good luck!
posted

Avishay wrote:

01:24:020 (5,6,1) - Not really gameplay related, but all of 3 slider tails have unnecessary inherited points?
go try Taiko sometime (even with Auto mod)
posted
will reply as soon as i get back home
Thank.
posted
considering most of the guest on collab is p inactive i'd take a look over them as well (except CHARLEs) and i'll try to approach every suggestion in the closest way possible to their mapping style (kinda)

Lizzy wrote:

you can't be serious same

EDIT: it appears like it's never too late to give feedback... and boooy, i think it really does need some. lol i could have actually mapped a diff by now.

Yes, I might just have about 1000pp, but that doesn't mean I can't play this diff. I've played it up to here with not many problems and found it surprisingly comfortable to play. I happen to have just about enough playing experience to be able to give my gameplay-based opinion about this map. And if I've seen correctly the past half year, ranking maps is based on how well they play, correct? Well, at least allow me to contribute to this.


02:26:878 (2,1) - This is painful to play. What I'd do is a triple on a slider instead. Something like this maybe. If necessary, increase spacing from (3) to (4) and accordingly to next (1). it's actually very fun to play ; _;
02:28:592 (5,1) - This is even more painful.. ow it hurts. I see your thought why it's not just a five-objects stream but instead ending with a slider, because you can hear that sound in the music as well. The problem is, you need to hold the cursor on the slider since it's facing left, but the next object is on the right side. It'll be a lot better to make a blanket out of it, like this. ends probably treating it like the previous beat but with some added emphasis or something like that
02:32:592 (1,2,3,1) - Liked this pattern! cool job! TANK
02:34:592 (2,1) - Questionable spacing... I'm not gonna say anything about it other than it's questionable since it's still sort of playable. tuned down a bit
02:35:163 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,1) - I dislike the spacing here and the direction the stream is leading. 02:34:735 (1,2) - These objects suggest cursor movement towards the lower center of the playfield. If that stream were to be Ctrl G'd and accordingly spaced, it'd go down in the twinkling of an eye. I'd make it less curved as well, in that case. It's quite playable nonetheless, but I'm on about the looks instead. it's ok THO
02:36:735 (2,1) - I would have preferred a triple leading into (1). ends seemingly map these kind of beat this way so i'd just leave it as it is
02:40:306 (1) - I do not see reason at all why this shouldn't be a circle. It's just making the pattern more complicated than it has to be. Explain please? i think it's like, there's this steep pitch change here and the slider kinda accompanies that w/e
02:40:735 (1,2,3) - This looks, feels and plays out of place. The distance from (2) to (3) is truly exaggerated in comparison to the combo before and in my opinion is not justified. pattern emphasis?
02:41:592 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - I find this pattern extra-ordinarily bad since it's deliberately inversely arranged, facing in one direction and having a triple at the end where the pattern started, with the SAME time gap between the objects. I would have instead applied a triangle structure, leaving the player to less complicated jump, like this. loool idk this is like the default way winber maps
02:42:878 (1,1) - This is antijumping at its finest... not. This is completely counter-intuitive to the player's anticipation and looks bad. maybe he's trying to map a less jumpy pattern or something?!??! either way i'm not sure how to tweak this out without changing the flow entirely
02:42:306 (7,1,2,3,1) - Doesn't play well for me either. Don't know about others, I'm solely sure about myself. idk lmao
02:46:306 (1,2,3,4,1) - The triple is facing a different way than the general flow is (next pattern). back & forth flow style
02:46:735 (1,2,3,1) - The flow issue from before results here in troubling gameplay as the cursor is required to move precisely here. the slider is there to normalize movement i think!??!? hence slow sv
02:49:592 (3) - I would have loved to see this as a circle instead. And tbh I don't see reason why this shouldn't be a circle. I see more reason against making it a slider, since it's pausing cursor movement, however briefly. i would tweak it but sadly i see no way to recreate the whole pattern without destroying the current flow ;___;
02:50:163 (1,2,3,4,1,2,1,2,1,2) - Neat idea here, though! same
02:52:306 (1,2,3,4) - Emphasis is put on wrong points with wrong objects. I would have just left six circles here, 2x3 circles (as in, 2 combos à 3 circles). Maybe like this. It really doesn't matter what way you arrange (triangles or unfinished squares) or space them (3 circles even, jump, 3 circles even, another jump to next combo).
02:58:306 (1,1) - I dislike playing this pattern due to the second slider ending waaay somewhere else, as in, not anywhere near the next slider start.
02:59:163 (1,2,3) - TBH, Ctrl G on this plays better imo.
03:01:735 (1,1,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3) - Wonderful pattern! =^-^= same

Also liked how uncomplicatedly Hanzer's part went down, nice job overall on the diff!
Please note that all of my suggestions are parts that I don't feel are enjoyable to play.

01:19:735 (1,2,3,4,1) - The relatively small SV just makes this kinda, meh. But the non-logical 1/6 jump just ruined it for me. It feels really really awkward and anti-intuitive, the spacing here makes no sense, I'd understand if 4 was stacked on 1 since it would be more intuitive to play (same goes for the same pattern in later parts of this kiai) visually, it is small but play-wise it's pretty balanced for me

01:24:020 (5,6,1) - Not really gameplay related, but all of 3 slider tails have unnecessary inherited points? my habit of normalizing every non1.0sv sliders on their tails lol

01:24:592 (1) - A slider really ruins it, I am not sure how to describe the sound the slider lands on, but the sound is the same both on slider head and tail. Two circles or two shorter sliders would feel so much better and satisfying to play. that's actually a good idea

01:31:735 (1,2,3) - It's cool and yeah, but I don't think it is enjoyable in the current spacing and 1/6 gaps. but i liked it ;_;

01:38:020 (2,3) - 1/6 sliders will play much better, how can you not want to press on the WUBS rather then have the slider end on them? trying to keep consistency with most of my patterns and 1/6 sliders are way too much of an emphasis here

I agree with most of what Lizzy mentioned but pointing it twice is pointless, I love this map a lot, hopefully I can help to make it even more enjoyable.

Good luck!


TANK u guys
updated wendao's diff and collab
waiting for charles
posted
shit doublepost
posted
eh ness jangan lupa diff gw udah ditambah +7 ms (pls revert if you think it's wrong)

in case you didn't notice it


I'm going to fix something

4th EDIT:

http://puu.sh/hv50b.zip reverted offset | added some inherited points
posted
Take a drink every time the map gets unqualified

02:52:306 (1,2,3,4) - Emphasis is put on wrong points with wrong objects. I would have just left six circles here, 2x3 circles (as in, 2 combos à 3 circles). Maybe like this. It really doesn't matter what way you arrange (triangles or unfinished squares) or space them (3 circles even, jump, 3 circles even, another jump to next combo).
And such is the dilemma of emphasis patterns.
Of these 6 notes, the only one with true impact is 02:52:306 - , therefore there must be a start here (which there is).
The rest of it is ambiguous and can be done however, so I chose to do it like 00:50:592 - .

02:58:306 (1,1) - I dislike playing this pattern due to the second slider ending waaay somewhere else, as in, not anywhere near the next slider start.
I uh, you mean the first slider not being way somewhere else? Because the second one is a close dropoff.
So if you meant the first one, then that's pretty understandable, but this is how the pattern is meant to be played.
http://puu.sh/hvFst/c87e48b78c.jpg Move down and to the right, pause on the orange dot and wait for the slider to finish, then start moving back up.
You're not supposed to actually follow the slider closely (you can if you want but it would make it more difficult, hehehe)

02:59:163 (1,2,3) - TBH, Ctrl G on this plays better imo.
Oh huh that's really interesting, I see what you're getting at, although I'd just reverse the 2 and 3.
That would need some serious pattern reworking though, and I think the extra emphasis given to 1-2 wouldn't be enough to warrant a redo of the entire part.


So I guess tl;dr no change, but thanks for looking it over, those were some good things to consider
posted
yep, meant the first slider. sry ><
posted
The hard difficulty has got to be the hardest Hard ever D:
posted
i can't update?!?!? smh??!?!
my first bss error this year
posted
this year
posted
WHY CAN'T YOU JUST GET IT RANKED FFS
posted
idk bb
show more
Please sign in to reply.