sukiNathan wrote:

sukiNathan wrote:

koreapenguin wrote:

Sieg wrote:

Why artist ant title in those uppercase stylization? This makes absolutely no sense.

have no idea, just followed the official

1. After some internal discussion, we have agreed that the flow is broken due to counterintuitive patterns and patterns that keep going on themselves in a confusing way.
   Examples:
   
   1. 01:16:360 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3) - ,01:25:983 (3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) - , 01:40:983 (4,5,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - , 02:09:568 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - and the list goes on.
2. Telling the difference between 2/3 gaps and 1/2 gaps is really hard which reduces the readability of the map drastically. At 01:46:926 (1,2,3,1) - or 03:25:417 (1,2,3) - are no indicators that actually show you that these are 2/3 gaps making it pretty confusing to play. Same happens for 1/3 being easily mistaken as for 00:33:342 (1,2,3,4) - for example. Also patterns like 01:22:021 (1,2,3,1,2,1,2) - should rather be avoided as they can easily be misread as doubles between 01:22:304 (3,1) - for example even though NCs are used here.
3. Your usage of rhythm can also lead to confusion. For example 01:18:200 (1,2,1,2) - would be much better by just using something more simple like this than rather using something complex ending up as really hard to understand.

• Well, all in all we came to the conclusion that this map needs further revision when it comes to general pattering and rhythm as the way it's structured by now makes it counterintuitive and somewhat confusing to play and therefore needlessly difficult.
  Anyways, don't forget to change the metadata as well. Good luck! o/

• As the DQ post stated, this suffers from both playability and readability issues. There are three problems with this: overlaps, movement, and rhythm. One important thing is making your stuff intuitive, ie not surprising or going against what the player may want or expect.

1. rhythm: you can't just go with whatever your mind says and use rhythms that are wrong (ie not in the song), then couple them with the other two problems. If you want to use complex or unexpected rhythms, that's fine, but you need to make sure they are readable AND intuitive enough. Coupling them with unintuitive movement or confusing overlaps is going to make them insanely difficult to hit.
2. movement: this doesn't play well. The movement is unintuitive (see above), sometimes repetitive, sometimes not, and doesn't seem to follow a given logic which makes it unpredictable. That would be fine if it weren't coupled with bad rhythms (yes I said it) and confusing overlaps that make this extremely hard to read.
3. overlaps: controlled overlaps as part of a pattern are generally fine, but hiding every hitobject under a different one quickly becomes unreadable. Keep your overlaps scarce if you want this to be more readable and intuitive.

1. 00:17:493 (1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,6,1) - several things with this pattern: first off, I like the little bit of structure you put into it (with the two sliders) but 00:17:493 (1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,6) - movement for this is pretty clear, with a few overlaps that don't bother, but you abruptly change here: 00:19:757 (1,2,1,2) - . If I understand correctly you decided to go for a back-and-forth to follow the slight change in that weird background instrument, but you're doing it in a visually confusing way because of the repeated overlaps (and because it's lost in a corner of the screen). It's not a big problem (this is still playable) but could be improved. Keep the overlaps between 00:19:757 (1,2,1,2) - but don't make them overlap with the rest of the patterns to make it clearer (also make the overlaps more even). Also, 00:20:040 (1) - shouldn't be a new combo.
2. 00:27:681 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,1) - This rhythm is wrong, overmapped and unintuitive. The first 1/4 in the map starts with a sliderend (and they are particularly frustrating to play because they lack the first beat). The 1/4 only starts in the song at this point: 00:28:389 - and not before, yet your rhythm has 1/4 before that, which is incorrect. You should remove 00:27:893 (2,5) - because they simply don't exist in the song and, if you want, you can add a circle at 00:28:601 - then rework 00:28:459 (7,8,9,10,11) - to be a stream (preferably with no jumps, as I don't see anything that would justify a jumpstream at this part). You can stack 00:28:106 (3,4) - if you want, but I'd recommend to avoid stacking manually or having a fake stack because it would be confusing to read.
3. 00:32:209 (1,2,3,4,5) - This is very uneven and looks very weird. I'd recommend stacking the triple (to avoid having this weird little movement to the left) and making the jumps more even. It will look and play better
4. 00:34:191 (5,6,1) - I'd have expected these to be jumps to go with the generally "large" spacing of this part and to follow the violin in the song.
5. 00:36:172 (3,4,5,6,1,2) - This was cool but it's very uneven and looks bad, you should be able to make this better visually and in terms of playability if the angle and spacing between 00:36:172 (3,4) - is the same as between 00:36:738 (1,2) -
6. 00:36:879 (2,3,4,5,6,7) - I'm not too sure this 1/4 is a good addition. If you want to keep some added 1/4 there (I would understand why) try going for a rhythm similar to 00:29:945 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,1) - for more consistency and because that rhythm plays well, while the two triples are somewhat ssurprising.
7. 00:39:002 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,1) - Same, it would be a cool addition to keep a set rhythm and repeat it (varying the patterns) for this part.
8. 00:40:559 (2,3,4,5,6) - Uneven jumps again, I'm not too sure what you were going for here actually. I assume you were going for the violin going crescendo in the background, but then it would call for increasing spacing, not irregular one. Try doing a pattern with increasing spacing and see how it plays. Also, if you were indeed going for the violin, 00:41:266 (1,2,3,4) - I believe these should circles to continue with the pattern you were doing. In terms of structure, it would be a nice contrast with the rhythms before that included a lot of sliders and would lead more comfortably into 00:42:398 (1) - .
9. 00:42:823 (1,1,1) - These new combos are not needed.
10. 00:45:087 (1,1,1) - These aren't either and just a note that 00:44:662 (1,1,1,1) - was cool to play.
11. 00:46:785 (1,2) - I don't know if this was done on purpose or not, but this kind of jump has very bad flow because of the movement it implies. You're going fast to the right from (1) to hit (2), but then (2) goes immediately to the left and this produces a very anti-flow pattern.
12. 00:49:120 (6) - This 1/4 does not exist in the song. That said I think I understand why you added it, but then there are several problems. First of all, 00:49:120 (6,1) - are stacked under 00:48:342 (3) - which makes the split triple very hard to read. Second of all, the emphasis on it is wrong. Because the jump is on 00:48:908 (5,6) - the emphasis will be on 00:49:120 (6) - . If you want to keep a split triple and have the proper emphasis, I would suggest you move (6) so the jump is on 00:49:120 (6,1) - but then you'll have to be very careful to make it lead properly into (1). On this picture the blue cone is (approximately) the area where the cursor can be to SS this pattern, and if you want this to play well, you need the second red line (on (1)) to be at least partially into this cone, otherwise the change in direction will be too abrupt and this will be too hard to hit properly.
13. 00:50:889 (3,4,5,6) - I really dislike this rhythm. I don't think it goes well with the song. This part mimicks a rhythm we have previously seen on 00:46:360 (2,3,1) - so I think you should keep a similar pattern. Use a large jump for 00:50:889 (3,4) - (smaller than the one at 00:46), then stack (3) with 00:51:313 (1) - . Now if you do that and delete 00:51:101 (5,6) - you will miss a snare on 00:51:172 (5) - so I would suggest to make (4) a 1/2 slider so you can keep the snare while retaining the emphasis on 00:50:889 (3,4) - and the notable lack of main instrument on 00:51:172 (5) - by having (3,4) clicked but not the snare. If you want to keep proper flow on this I would suggest moving 00:50:606 (2) - as well. Now if you want to add a little gimmick to it (which I think plays really cool, try it), you can make 00:51:030 (4) - (now a slider) slower (0.5 SV) then modify 00:51:313 (1) - a bit so the dent is covered by 00:51:030 (4) - . It would look something like this.
14. 00:52:587 (1,2) - I would make (1) a circle and (2) a slider to keep the emphasis on this weird instrument that can clearly hear at 00:52:587 - and 00:52:728 - . Also, the triple 00:53:436 (5,6,7) - is misplaced. It doesn't go with the song, and if you want to add emphasis, splitting the instrument is not a good idea. If anything, you could turn 00:53:577 (7,1) - into a triple to emphasize/lead to the change in rhythm and instruments.
15. 00:53:719 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2) - This was good. Really. The movement is circular without being annoying, the spacing increases progressively and leads into the stream, this flows well thanks to that, and you're reusing a pattern for 00:55:417 (1,2,1) - which adds to the map's strucutre. That was good.
16. 00:55:842 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - That rhythm was good, too, and I think it'd add a little something to reuse 00:55:842 (1) - this slider shape for 00:57:540 (4) - :3
17. 00:58:247 (1,2,3,4,5) - If you want to keep the consistency with your rhythm right before, then this should be reversed. Try replacing this whole rhythm with something like this.
18. 01:00:228 (3,4) - Why is (3) stacked under the sliderend but not (4) ? This ruins the symmetry of the pattern. =(
19. 01:02:209 (4,5) - I'd suggest to turn this into a 1/2 slider to repeat 01:01:360 (5) - while still keeping the stream.
20. 01:02:776 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1) - Why not reuse a rhythm like 01:00:511 (1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4) - ? It would add a pretty nice "symmetry" to the map for this pattern, and the same rhythm is used in the song but you're using completely different rhythms in the map. =(
21. 01:07:375 (2,3) - This 1/4 isn't in the song and is actually annoying to play, especially after a long slider. You should remove it so you keep rhythms similar to 01:05:040 (1,2,3,1) - for 01:05:889 (1,4,1,2) - that will play better.
22. 01:08:153 (2,1) - This is the first 3/4 in the whole map. While I agree that this needs 3/4, it isn't well executed. The spacing is extremely confusing and looks like they are 1/2 apart, and (1) is on top of that hidden under 01:07:728 (1) - . This makes for a terribly confusing rhythm. Place 01:08:436 (1) - much closer to 01:08:153 (2) - for readability. Also, it will make the spacing on 01:05:889 (1,4,1,2,1) - decrease gradually, which will emphasize the silence in the song before it starts full-blown again with 01:08:577 (2,3,4,5,6,7,1,2,3,1) -
23. 01:13:813 (5,1) - Just a note that this time, the anti-flow movement is fitting and works well.
24. 01:15:087 (1,2) - Use the same slider ? :3
25. 01:16:077 (4,1) - Another badly executed 3/4. Again, the spacing is confusing, and you are hiding them under another slider. This is an example of what I meant earlier with "coupling with unintuitive overlaps". You need to space them out to make the 3/4 fully readable and not surprising and confusing.
26. 01:17:917 (3,4,5) - The movement on this is rather counterintuitive. For the sake of consistency with 01:17:351 (4,5,1) - alone, I'd suggest to stack these, but it would also play much better.
27. 01:18:200 (1,2) - Now, with this, you can start having higher spacing on the 3/4, but that would require the other 3/4 I pointed out to be made more readable so this isn't a surprise anymore.
28. 01:18:625 (1,2) - I know this is in the song, but for the sake of playability and not having an unexpected rhythm here, I'd suggest starting (2) 1/4 later and making this a triple.
29. 01:20:889 (1,2) - This plays terribly. It couples two big problems: the 3/4 is more or less unreadable and the movement is extremely counterintuitive. I understand why you went for the 3/4 (I would have gone for a 3/4 too >.>), but this is badly executed. I'd suggest to turn (2) into two circles and keep 01:20:889 (1,2) - (now slider+circle [+circle]) similar to 01:18:200 (1,2) - .
30. 01:22:162 (2,3,1,2,1,2) - There are four big problems with this. First of all, this rhythm is nowhere to be heard in the song, which means that if you want to use it, you need to make sure it's intuitive. Second, the 1/4slider+circle combo never plays well. It leads to extremely snappy movement which is rarely enjoyable at this spacing. Third, the way you need the pattern is extremely confusing. This is the first time in the song you've used this kind of rhythm, as the 1/4 sliders before were at the end of a stream and executed properly, so this is surprising, and the spacing doesn't help read it. The weird stack don't help read it either. Finally, the emphasis is again completely wrong. I understand you're going with the triples to follow the drums and emphasize them, but then you need to emphasize them through spacing as well, which means the jumps should be on 01:22:162 (2,1,1) - and not 01:22:304 (3,2,2) - . Turn 01:22:162 (2,3,1,2,1,2) - into stacked triples so this pattern plays better and has proper emphasis. Also, remove the new combos.
31. 01:24:214 (5) - Remove this. It plays very bad because of the 3/4 before AND the split triple (which I've talked about previous). I've tried to find a justification for this note, but I can't find anything. It's not in the song, it's not emphasizing anything, right now it just contributes to making this pattern confusing and difficult to play.
32. 01:29:804 (1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,1) - That was really cool and well done.
33. 01:35:181 (3,4) - Not too sure why you're going for this kind of movement here. I would have expected something smoother, the song is pretty calm at this point.
34. 01:38:860 (5,6,1) - Slightly spaced triple, why not, but I'd recommend making it go the other direction (to the right) for the sake of movement.
35. 01:41:266 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1) - This movement is really complex, which is cool, but it doesn't lead into the stream properly, and that is a problem. The stream itself is spaced, which means going into it with the wrong angle will lead to failing instantly (I failed at this point on my first try of the map). Try reworking the pattern a bit so that the last part of the jumpy pattern is around here 01:42:681 (2) - so that the jumps lead more smoothly into the stream. You could also compress the beginning of the stream to give it more leniency.
36. 01:44:875 (2,3) - Again, this split triple is badly executed and doesn't actually add anything to the map. It's confusing because it goes against the rhythm you were using before. You should remove 01:44:875 (2) - .
37. 01:46:926 (1,2,3,1) - This was fairly hard to read, I think you should try making the spacing much smaller on these to highlight the fact they are 1/3. Generally the song, goes very calm at this point, there's no need for such massive jumps.
38. 01:47:492 (1,2) - I wouldn't recommend using a 3/4 slider right after a 1/3 pattern because it gets very confusing, but this one is properly readable, so the choice is entirely up to you. If you keep it, align 01:47:492 (1,2) - properly for the sake of visuals.
39. 01:49:474 (1,1) - Don't do this. A "3/4" super long slider just gets extremely confusing. Unlike actual 3/4 there is little to no musical background to justify them, and the map's flow cannot lead into playing this properly because the long slider offers a very clear stop. I think you should make the slider end on the white tick, make 01:49:474 (1,2,1) - (now ending on the white tick) "anti-jumps", then kick off the jumps again with 01:50:889 (1) - .
40. 01:51:455 (1,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1) - Extremely bad idea. Extreeeeeeeeeeemly. This doesn't get anymore confusing. The slider looks and feels like a 3/4 slider, which is wrong, and the 1/3 here is basically unreadable because it looks like spaced 1/4. I'd suggest turning them into repeat sliders to make this more playable and less surprising.
41. 01:59:662 (2,3) - This is very surprising. This part is a calm part in the song, which calls for a lot less density (you got that right) and lower spacing. The jump here is massively unexpected because of it. Simply space this properly.
42. 02:02:209 (2,3,1) - This played strangely well. Good job !
43. 02:03:625 (5) - The little dent induces extremely counterintuitive movement. It forces the player to go back for a very short while, before the small jump into 02:03:908 (1) - and that doesn't play well.
44. 02:06:738 (3,4) - This rhythm is actually wrong. Reuse 02:02:209 (2,3,1) - , that played really well. It will also add a nice structure to the chorus.
45. 02:07:587 (2,3,4) - There's no reason why you should hide the triple under the previous slider. That's confusing, again. Also, it's inconsistent with 02:02:634 (1,2) - which makes it even more confusing.
46. 02:10:700 (1,2,3) - Why the split ?
47. 02:14:945 (5,1) - This is inconsistent with 02:12:540 (4,5,1) - . Try changing it to make it more consistent and avoid having the 3/4+triple that plays rather bad.
48. 02:17:209 (4,5,1) - Once more, this split triple is badly executed. You keep hiding those under other sliders, which makes them extremely hard to read.
49. 02:20:181 (3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,1) - This stream is rather unexpected. I don't mind it, but I'd recommend compressing it to give it more leniency.
50. 02:32:209 (1,2,4,5) - Same problem as before. The same fix would work, so please do that.
51. 02:33:059 (7,8,9,10,1) - For the sake of consistency, delete 02:33:271 (10) - to make this triple+circle.
52. 02:41:266 (1,2) - Inconsistent with you pattern before. Please make (1) a full 1/1 slider for consistent. And again, 02:41:691 (1,1,1,1,1,1) - remove these new combos.
53. 02:45:370 (3,4) - Going back under the sliders with (4) is very surprising. Actually, when I played this, I didn't expect (4) at all and it threw me off on the stream. You should turn (3,4) into a 1/2 slider that points to the stream, I think.
54. 02:56:691 (6,7,8) - Hiding this under a slider is confusing. ;_;
55. 03:01:077 (4) - INCORRECTLY SNAPPED SLIDER should be 1/3, not 1/8.
56. 03:25:983 (1) - Should be 3/4.
57. 03:27:965 (1,1,2,3) - I pointed out previous what was wrong with kind of pattern.
58. 03:30:936 (6) - For the sake of playability this should be pointing down !
59. 03:35:818 (2,3) - This was fairly confusing. I think you should space this 1/4 normally and keep the jumps for the 1/4 sliders. There's nothing to emphasize at 03:35:818 (2) - I'm not sure why you're doing this.
60. 04:21:172 (2,3) - Same as before for the 3/4.
61. 04:43:625 (2) - Should be snapped on 1/3 too.
62. 05:00:512 (1,2) - For the record, this one plays fine because it's very readable and inserts itself well within the jump pattern you were already doing.
63. 05:03:908 (1,2,3) - Again, a split triple. I've written a lot about them and this one is no exception.
64. 05:05:323 (2,3,4) - ^
65. 05:08:295 (1,2,3) - ^
66. 05:14:096 (1,2,3) - This one has particularly counterintuitive movement.
67. 05:18:766 (2,3,4) - I'd suggest to move these up so the jump 05:18:907 (4,5) - is smaller. This movement is fairly counterintuitive, but this part is readable, I'd just suggest to make the jumps smaller. If anything I would suggest to compress 05:18:766 (2,3,4,5,6,1) - to have a clear contrast between the triples and the stream.
68. 05:22:304 (2) - New comboing this would help make this more readable. The spacing already does, I think it would just be a plus.
69. 05:32:526 (4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,1) - Don't use weird spacing for this part, the rhythms become extremely difficult to hit at this point, I think you need something to show that these are not the regular 1/2 anymore. New combo the first hit at least.

Chocolat wrote:

rip

I honestly think these things should have been fixed the few times back instead of ranking then starting the unrank and rerank loop.

Well, good luck!

Septembre wrote:

BATs

Septembre wrote:

The problem is more BATs who rank maps that they not ready for ranking, not totally mappers who want rank her maps

CXu wrote:

@Shiro: A lot of things you point out are very minor issues that mostly won't affect playability. While it's certainly good to fix some of them now that the map is DQd anyway, some issues seem like you're forcing the mod to be longer than necessary. For example, the background instruments kinda repeats at 00:19:757 - , so both NC and no NC works fine. Also, 00:27:681 - clearly has drums in the background and isn't overmapped. both 00:27:823 - and 00:27:893 - are harder to hear, but they are there, and starting on a blue tick is really not an issue at all when you're up towards 6-7 star maps. I mean, do you really think people that are capable of playing at this level will have issues with something like this? Well, I'm not actually going to go through your whole modpost, and koreanpenguin has probably already gone through it anyway, and I'm sure there are a lot of valid suggestions in your post, though I do think this is more a case of overmodding than anything else. You talk a lot about a lack of structure, but I'd say that "lack of structure" is the structure of the map, and while some people might not like this mapping style, it is a valid one and forcing another type of structure would make the map worse off than before. Also just as a sidenote, 00:32:351 - plays completely fine.

No Dap wrote:

calm down and enjoy the game freaks

Loctav wrote:

No Dap wrote:

calm down and enjoy the game freaks

get the fuck out.

EvilElvis wrote:

koreapenguin wrote:

EvilElvis wrote:

wtf

EvilElvis wrote:

the nature