Mahogany wrote:
I'm just thinking people are more annoyed at the ranking system itself than they are at this map in particular. I don't think it's so much "I hate this map and don't want it to be ranked" but moreso "Why does this map get ranked when there are other maps that (this is the subjective part) deserve to be ranked more" -not my words, but it seems to be a general sentiment.
This is basically what Im about. We've had so many subjectively perfect maps which got dq'd many times because of subjective reasons/opinions that shouldnt lead to a dq in the first place.
If we were to take these subjective reasons/opinions and apply them to this map, we'd most likely end up in a dq loop.
QATs,
- Perhaps we should
discuss some points and patterns of this map even more to make sure that the maps' quality is "top notch" and "flawless"
before the map gets ranked?
- Many have already posted that they dont feel like the map is as intuitive as it could be, so maybe we should
look into that?- There have also been some
unanswered questions (multiple, actually) in the thread.
(As well as rather pointless answers on more critique) Why are these ignored? Is <no answer> a valid answer?
Anyway, as a few random examples, lets compare above disqualifications with these:
(I went through the map once and just wrote down whatever I could find. This is not an in-depth mod. These are basic examples)-> Design: Only straight Sliders (north <-> south) being used. Is this creative or lazy?
-> Readability: 00:21:239 (1,2,1,2,1,2,3,1) - and 01:23:367 (2,1,2,3) - Isit a Slider, isit a Circle,
when does what happen? (The second example is literally what got dq'd in the picture given)
-> Design: (01:35:949 (1,2,1,2,1) - and all similar) Is this fun and intuitive to play or just unnecessarily difficult?
-> Design: 01:40:594 (2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13) - Shouldnt the turns happen on the claps? (6 and 10 instead of 6 and 9)
-> Consistency: Like it's mapped at 01:52:981 (2) - and 02:45:626 (2) -
-> Design: 01:46:014 (1,2,1,2,3) - Shouldnt the spacing be equalized? If not, why not?
-> Readability: 02:28:593 (1,2,3,1) - Could the player mistake 02:28:981 (1) - as a part of the stream, like it's happening on 02:28:691 (2,3) - ?
-> Design/Consistency: 02:57:240 (1,2,1,2,1) - Suddenly this pattern's second streamjump is reversed. Could people misread that after various other similar (but not reversed) patterns?
-> Design: 04:29:369 (1,2,1,2,1) - Is it really a good idea to map Streamjumps like this?
-> Design: Is the movement on patterns like 04:49:013 (2,1) - or 04:49:787 (4,1) - really enjoyable?
(Im not gonna mention the "speedy" or "tricky" parts of this map. They'll talk for themselves)Honestly, if you guys were to check this map the same way you checked others, this one wouldve been dq'd a long time ago. Multiple times probably. This map is just full of questionable things, how come this is just thrown into the ranked section like nobody even cared?
This is not against you HW, I dont care what your mapping style is. Im just kinda pissed about how DQs are handled nowadays. They're inconsistent as hell and it doesnt seem to improve much.
Though;
some words:
1. my mapping style: make objective sense, and not make your sense.
2. one can play a map well, but you can't. then you're just too weak.
1. This doesnt mean that youre free to map whatever and rank it whenever. There are still rules and guidelines on how you map has to be, in a general sense.
"Because your sense is stupid and mine isnt" doesnt make my maps rankable either, does it?
2. If I cant play a map because of its design, does that mean that Im not worthy enough of having an opinion? BNs are spread across all ranks - Does this mean that the higher rank BNs are much better than the lower ranked BNs? Is hvick a mapping god?
Some people's opinion on "You cant even play it, so why would you be able to have an opinion on that" isnt valid either. If I map a 12* Beatmap with various "creative Patterns", would noone be able to judge them besides me? Could I rank this straight away? Would that be okay?
In my case, probably not.
In some other peoples case, most likely ... apparently.
