asd123iii wrote:

這diff spread 堪憂 这问题有点纠结，静观事态发展
[Normal]
我太爛了打Normal也會miss

漸強的音應該是從00:07:525 - 開始才對 不過我建議這段還是以鋼琴為主會比較好 改了，但是只抓钢琴未免单调，而且这个渐强的音很重，不抓不太好
建議改成00:07:712 (7712|0) - 一個note然後把後面的排列改下 渐强音用单note不合适
00:11:837 - 改成這樣? 然後上面LN從00:13:337 - 開始 适当改了下，LN没改，音是从00:13:525开始的

00:37:525 (37525|4,37712|5) - 改成一個LN? 已改
00:49:150 - 試試看這樣? kiai前面那里没放LN是为了体现过渡，而且00:49:056 ~ 00:49:900 这段有点难的，正好用单note调整下

00:51:775 - 試試看這樣? 这样的话抓音没抓完整，而且从00:55:900开始不抓鼓点去抓别的音有点突兀，还是鼓点抓到底好了

01:00:400 - 試試看這樣? 还是抓音不全的感觉

01:04:525 (64525|6) - 改成note 已改
01:06:025 (66025|6) - ^ ^
01:13:900 (73900|3) - 在01:14:931 - 結束 我听下来是在01:15:025结束，只不过01:14:931开始有其他音干扰
01:14:931 - add a note 已加
01:15:212 (75212|2) - remove fixed
01:15:400 - 01:21:400 - 這裡我不想吐槽了 自己再想想吧 我明白你的意思，这里直接略去了所有在蓝线上的鼓点note，因为这段LN主音旋律比较复杂，不像前面那么简单，如果在这里也把鼓点note全写上的话作为normal太难了，Hard就都写上了，可以感受一下。顺带一提本来这段是一个鼓点note都不加的，难度是1.7星，后来因为diff spread要求不得不把星数拉高，所以就这么写了，总体而言大部分蓝线处的鼓点都有LN切换，从打击手感上还是可以接受的，个人认为。
01:39:400 - 01:27:400 - ^ ^
01:49:923 (109923|2) - remove 這裝飾音不好看 我觉得还行
01:50:275 (110275|2) - remove 留鋼琴音就好 已改
01:50:837 (110837|5) - ^ ^
01:54:400 - 試試看這樣? 抓3/4？不太明白，后面用1/2连续note感觉比一根LN带过要好

[Hard]
00:40:150 (40150|4) - 這個沒音吧, 正確來說音在00:39:962 - 跟00:40:056 - 有的，比较轻
00:41:650 (41650|1) - 同上 后面都同上
00:43:150 (43150|1) - ^
00:44:650 (44650|0) - ^
00:46:150 (46150|4) - 有音不過不是鼓點
00:47:650 (47650|1) - ^
00:53:650 (53650|5) - ^
01:03:868 - add a note fixed
01:05:368 - ^ ^
01:06:868 - ^ ^
01:20:650 (80650|4) - 有音不過不是鼓點
01:28:150 (88150|2) - ^

差不多就這樣...

Ichigaki wrote:

Mod Requested from QQ

Column setup

| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |

General

1. Song Setup :
   
   1. Metadata : Clear
   2. Other : Uncheck 'Widescreen support' because there's no SB Fixed
2. Music and background :
   
   1. Music : Just not sure with the last part of song, blank for +- 15 seconds Bcz the last 15 seconds doesn't make sense
   2. Background : Background should have 1366x768 or 1024x768 resolution I'm searching for a better one ;w;
3. Kiai and audio preview point :
   
   1. Kiai : Kiai in Ex-Ray is different with the other Fixed
   2. Audio preview point : How about 01:15:025 - ? Nice change

Warning

This mod mostly contain suggestion, so feel free to reject it with the reason

Ex-Ray

1. 00:01:337 (1337|0) - I can't hear anything what you follow here, the synth started from 00:01:525 - right? Here's an obvious sound with lower pitch, perhaps you missed it by the influence of hitsound
2. 00:27:025 - How about add LN here until 00:27:400 - to follow the synth there? Better not to follow, bcz the synth here is very light, so might as well leave it blank for a rest
3. 00:55:150 - Should be 2-notes, right? 1 note is enough for the sound
4. 01:03:118 - Missed rhythm here, maybe add it to 3 Fixed
5. 01:03:962 - 01:04:056 - 01:04:337 - Missed rhythm again Just not following this sound
6. 01:12:400 - How about change it into 3-notes since its loud is different with 01:10:900 - Fixed
7. 01:17:650 - Should be 2-notes Fixed
8. 01:27:400 - How about 4-notes because of its loud and move 01:27:493 (87493|2) - to 2? Fixed
9. 01:27:493 (87493|2) - Should be 3-notes, because its loud different with the other near it You forgot to disfocus the former note

Hard

1. 00:25:993 (25993|4) - How about move this to 7 because it have different sound with 00:26:087 (26087|2,26181|4,26275|2,26368|4,26462|2) - ? I think the different sound is this one 00:26:087 (26087|2), but for the sake of pattern I still want to put it here
2. 00:29:837 - Add a note, missed pattern Added
3. 01:27:775 - Add a note Added

Normal

1. 00:07:900 (7900|1) - Better if changed to normal note. OK
2. 00:25:150 (25150|4) - Should be started from 00:25:337 - I don't think so
3. 00:25:900 (25900|6,25900|0) - How about change one of both into LN which ended on 00:26:650 - ? Fixed
4. 01:57:025 - Maybe add a note to 5? Rearranged, mainly bcz missing note at 01:56:931

Overall

Really, really cool mapset. It's so fit with the song >w<), good luck guys Thx~~

[ S a k u r a ] wrote:

01.wav delay more than 5ms


J1.wav not over 100ms
J2.wav
J3.wav
J4.wav
J5.wav
J6.wav
J7.wav^

[ S a k u r a ] wrote:

BG resolution should be 16:9 or 4:3

Ichigaki wrote:

Mod Requested from QQ

Column setup

| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |

Pew's Insane

1. 00:25:618 - How about add note on 3 because its sound is same with 00:25:337 - nope, they LN are present to strings on previously
2. 00:26:837 - 00:27:025 - Should be added by note like the previous - can be added but looks no rest before new chorus. i think empty is a good way
3. 00:31:900 - Should be 2-notes like the previous (00:28:900 - and 00:30:400 - ) removed, nice catch
4. 01:15:775 - 01:17:275 - 01:18:775 - 01:27:775 - 01:29:275 - Should be 3-notes like previous - added
5. 01:19:056 - Add a note to 2 - all fixed/added
6. 01:19:150 - Add a note ^
7. 01:26:650 - Add a note to 5 ^
8. 01:29:650 - Add a note to 3 ^
9. 01:35:837 - Add a note for soft drum - prefer solo stream on there
10. 01:57:118 - 01:57:212 - Should be added by a note - no good/fit enough to add for ending note instrument

Kuo Kyoka wrote:

Grats ExPew and ljqandylee <3

IN GAME normal 1,98*, maybe its not an issue for the DQ

Charles445 wrote:

http://puu.sh/gsnFC/815877c55f.png
Jacks on weak finger make me sad

_S u w a k o_ wrote:

Charles445 wrote:

http://puu.sh/gsnFC/815877c55f.png
Jacks on weak finger make me sad

Depend on players' skill. lol'd. It's not even trill

Paulmrm wrote:

Aren't SR gaps wider than 1.5 stars unrankable? The gap between Insane's star rating and Ex-ray's is 1.87.

Spy wrote:

Paulmrm wrote:

Aren't SR gaps wider than 1.5 stars unrankable? The gap between Insane's star rating and Ex-ray's is 1.87.

Nobody said 1.5 stars gap is unrankable.

Fullerene- wrote:

I can't say for others, but the confusion I saw myself was because I saw this being referenced in other maps by BNs like in the link in my earlier post p/3772733

In addition, and I know others can say as well, but I distinctly remember the shi-ren trello saying "1.5+ star gap between diff = unrankable" in its ranking criteria page. Yes, I know it's not official documentation, and said documentation is gone now, but that page was referenced a lot many times in the past by many as a quick summary of ranking criteria that applies to mania only.

In any case, this has been cleared up so I don't think there's anything further to say about this.

why does anyone care about star rating anyway it's broken

Fullerene- wrote:

I can't say for others, but the confusion I saw myself was because I saw this being referenced in other maps by BNs like in the link in my earlier post p/3772733

In addition, and I know others can say as well, but I distinctly remember the shi-ren trello saying "1.5+ star gap between diff = unrankable" in its ranking criteria page. Yes, I know it's not official documentation, and said documentation is gone now, but that page was referenced a lot many times in the past by many as a quick summary of ranking criteria that applies to mania only.

In any case, this has been cleared up so I don't think there's anything further to say about this.

Spy wrote:

Fullerene- wrote:

I can't say for others, but the confusion I saw myself was because I saw this being referenced in other maps by BNs like in the link in my earlier post p/3772733

In addition, and I know others can say as well, but I distinctly remember the shi-ren trello saying "1.5+ star gap between diff = unrankable" in its ranking criteria page. Yes, I know it's not official documentation, and said documentation is gone now, but that page was referenced a lot many times in the past by many as a quick summary of ranking criteria that applies to mania only.

In any case, this has been cleared up so I don't think there's anything further to say about this.

1.5 is the standard discussed by me and ExPew. Actually I didn't say it in public. And we just said we'll consider the condition(BPM, patterns..etc) to decide disqualify it or not. I remember I wrote in ShiRen board before, but I wrote, "unacceptable", is there anyone can't distinguish "unacceptable" and "unrankable" ?
So, why should I say it clearly ? Controlling gap well is mapper and BN's jobs. From start to finish, how come "unrankable" ? I don't get it, and I never heard that.

shionelove wrote:

when Negative Legacy thing you guys forced that mappers to make less gap
they made really hard effort,you know,because you are experienced mapper
but this time you won't unrank this or even consider,just say not logical thing
hhh just AXION's mappers are your friends in QQ

Spy wrote:

QATs' works are not only one can decide it, it have to discuss.
About "hhh just AXION's mappers are your friends in QQ", I can't get your logic. I've said we'll consider the condition(BPM, patterns..etc) to decide disqualify it or not. I've discussed with other QATs, still wait for response, do you know that ? I think you're not. You only see the side of a thing.
I still can't get what you want to express. Your behavior is just like as my mistake that post your twitter in the thread before.
Be mature, okay ? We're talking about the map, not the relationship. Stop your nonsense.

shionelove wrote:

ok then i talk about this map
this map has more than 1.5 gap
when Negative Legacy unranked,BN(then BAT)forced mapper to make less gap then 1.5
and QAT or another BAT don't disagree this opinion
so if you don't DQ this map,it's not unfair
WITHOUT QUALITY thing,this map should be unrank
1.8 gap is too more than 1.5