No it does not.Feb wrote:
actually genryuu kaiko has premanent 1/4's but the sounds are imo not very audible.
No it does not.Feb wrote:
actually genryuu kaiko has premanent 1/4's but the sounds are imo not very audible.
"Leaving the map as it is, letting it die slowly and get to the beatmap graveyard (no worries you can still download and play those)"Your map will stll be there. The map will still be there w/o it being "molested" by all those "rude" opinions. (a map will "die" regardless of being ranked or in the graveyar)
Smokeman wrote:
IF your interpretation looks "flawed" or not "quite there yet" in the eyes of clearly more experienced ppl, then you should reconcider what you are doing here. NOONE wants to fuck your shit up. NOONE will gain anything from that. All these ppl modding and giving suggestions do it because they love doing this: mapping songs and helping others.
This is a more polite way to tell him to go fuck himself. No more of that please. He makes a point about double standards and favoritism, and that is something to be addressed, regardless of him wanting to rank a map or not.Smokeman wrote:
Man look...
You don't rly have to rank a map... noone is forcing you...
ok, so let me entangle that.Smokeman wrote:
All the statements should be made according to logical conclusions from the orginal work, which means even tho there are countles interpretations there is just one (or rarely a few) which is (are) more "right" then all the others. Does this mean you are wrong? By all means NO... but you arent right either... noone can be. Infact you can only get close to the "truth" with your interpretation (or theory) until someone falsifies it. Depending on the extent you have to either modify it or simply dismiss it completely.
Now this is something I can get behind. Listen to experience, for it most likely knows better than you do.Smokeman wrote:
IF your interpretation looks "flawed" or not "quite there yet" in the eyes of clearly more experienced ppl, then you should reconcider what you are doing here. NOONE wants to fuck your shit up. NOONE will gain anything from that. All these ppl modding and giving suggestions do it because they love doing this: mapping songs and helping others.
One last time, please please stop with this sentiment. This is what a system looks like that can't accept criticism and change.Smokeman wrote:
if you cant accept that then just dont rank it man.
My intention with this overmapped pattern is to create the emphasizition I felt necessary in the last kiai, I don't really think it was overdone at all, perhaps I could've put some flavor with hitsounds. Most of the 1/8 were intended to do the same around the map.Feb wrote:
actually genryuu kaiko has premanent 1/4's but the sounds are imo not very audible.
I think some person should step in and declare finally what the fuck actually overmapping is.
People speak from overmapping and then both mean different things again. To me 04:26:893 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) - theres really nothing in the song, I re-heard it like 50 times theres nothing. And that's what I understand of overmapping. Mapping to nothing. If you can explain to which beats or vocal you've mapped to and ppl can understand it afterwards than it's fine.
I partially agree with you on some points. Just work around your map it's not bad by any means. Don't do repulsive changes it doesn't help the map at all. If you feel like your 1/8's belong there just put em there and explain why.
good luck on the map. I love when ppl have their own styles. rip me.
Because it doesn't really matter? I felt like using this pattern in this part just because it felt right to me, both of those patterns work for the song and there's no real reason to exclude the use of one of them.Nube wrote:
So having skimmed through a bit, I'm not really going to mod this but I just wonder why 03:05:293 (1) - isnt a slider while 01:00:493 (3) - has a slider, and every following patterns like this has sliders instead of a random anti jump. Being consistent is one thing, but this is just a sloppy miss imo.
Furthermore, I actually agree that it needs more modding. This map shows that you are not a very experienced mapper (I don't think it's a bad map, just unpolished, a bit sloppy and unreasonable patterns) and should for the sake of the map seek more mods.
I also think overmapping is fine, even if it's 1/8 slider repeats to enhance something that would do well with an enhancement.
Also don't give me kd, whatever you choose to do.
This dialogue kinda makes sense here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKlnEmJ ... be&t=9m32s
That's kinda ironic, because even though Loctav posted this, the main points in his post still persisted and HW got the beatmap ranked. I should note that some QATs were thinking that the map was just fine after the first rank, however it got dq again and again, HW still maintained most of her subjective stuff, and it still got ranked.Spaghetti wrote:
You're arguing over spilled milk.
If so many people with a large amount of experience agree there's something wrong, then there's probably something wrong.
As Smokeman said, nobody is forcing you to rank this. No matter how well it plays or sounds or whatever, if it doesn't abide by the strict requirements of the ranking process, there's not much you can do, no matter how hard you whine.
Read this post for more info: http://osu.ppy.sh/forum/p/3619207
I know, right?Kroytz wrote:
nice song ;o
I love those sliders, some might too, some might not.Smokeman wrote:
btw 04:17:893 (1,1) - i can't rly get behind it. What exactly made him make those ugly sliders. This beautiful song can't possible evoke these unworldly shapes in ones head.
Relevant username.Im so mad bro wrote:
Avishay's comment honestly just feels like someone who is salty for getting their maps rejected and is trying to blame the system instead of changing their maps. Sure, the system is not perfect, but, that is why its moderated by people who have experience in what they are doing. Also, the bias you speak of is not a bias but an element of trust and mapper's knowledge - Hollow Wings can get such original maps ranked because she has the knowledge to justify doing so (a knowledge she gained through experience)
Along with the saltiness I did raise some points that are general, is that wrong?captin1 wrote:
arrogance is only going to make people not want to deal with you man, chill out
Avishay wrote:
Because it doesn't really matter? I felt like using this pattern in this part just because it felt right to me, both of those patterns work for the song and there's no real reason to exclude the use of one of them.
But it does matter and it does affect gameplay. If it didn't, I wouldn't have taken my precious neet time to try and explain this to you. You can't use a consistent pattern on 9/10 parts and then when the same part comes up again you decide to "feel" and leave it blank, making an anti jump. Does that make sense to you? Can you explain your pattern without saying you felt it was "ok"?Avishay wrote:
captin1 wrote:
arrogance is only going to make people not want to deal with you man, chill out
But anyway, what is the solution to my case? Fixing the issues stated in the mods? Although imo they don't really matter since they don't affect the gameplay at all? Honest question.
The stuff you are saying do make sense, it's like that because the pattern overall was different, a note used to exist at 03:05:218, but I removed it due to the DQ, regardless if I wanted to have it or not. But honestly, the patterns at 00:59:293 (1) - and 03:04:093 (1) - are completely different, is there a reason to use the same slider? The latter is more intense and has bigger spacing, how is it mandatory to do the same as before, how does it feel bad playing? I would understand if those patterns were identical excluding that slider..Nube wrote:
But it does matter and it does affect gameplay. If it didn't, I wouldn't have taken my precious neet time to try and explain this to you. You can't use a consistent pattern on 9/10 parts and then when the same part comes up again you decide to "feel" and leave it blank, making an anti jump. Does that make sense to you? Can you explain your pattern without saying you felt it was "ok"?
If both patterns work fine then why are you doing one pattern for all but one of those parts? Why are you being so stubborn about something so incredibly unnecessary?
The response you gave me + the fact that you don't even know or try to understand what other people find to be bad/sloppy about your map when they explain it only fortifies my statement. Your map just screams inexperienced and you need to get your head out of the gutter bro. Because even though I say I find it inexperienced, I do think you have some cool and somewhat original ideas going on as well, so don't get defensive when I try to help you please.
Again, I hate modding
not permanent yes - the slower parts aren't.a loli wrote:
No it does not.Feb wrote:
actually genryuu kaiko has premanent 1/4's but the sounds are imo not very audible.
No, This is a more polite way of telling him to take a min to chill. I tell him that because in the end of the day he wont gain anything from ranking his map but the feeling of self accomplishment (and internet fame for a day or two). Yes he recaps all of the ranking proccess we have so far and tries to blend in some perpective. I am not denying that. It's just that i was more concerned about the way he viewed criticism from other mappers than the whole ranking drama process every once in a while.Railey2 wrote:
Smokeman wrote:
Man look...
You don't rly have to rank a map... noone is forcing you...
This is a more polite way to tell him to go fuck himself. No more of that please. He makes a point about double standards and favoritism, and that is something to be addressed, regardless of him wanting to rank a map or not.
damn it was too late for that shit yesterday... Hope i can rephrase itRailey2 wrote:
Smokeman wrote:
All the statements should be made according to logical conclusions from the orginal work, which means even tho there are countles interpretations there is just one (or rarely a few) which is (are) more "right" then all the others. Does this mean you are wrong? By all means NO... but you arent right either... noone can be. Infact you can only get close to the "truth" with your interpretation (or theory) until someone falsifies it. Depending on the extent you have to either modify it or simply dismiss it completely.
ok, so let me entangle that.
- When we interpret art, the interpretation should be based on the original and it should be linked to it through logic
- There are countless interpretations
- Some are more right than others
- You aren't wrong
- You aren't right
- Nobody can be right
- you are right until you are falsified
- the one who falsified you is more right than you, hence why you have to follow his lead and change your interpretation that is not right and not wrong, so you can make it more right, except nobody can be right in the first place, although the one who falsified you is more right than you. It should also be logical.
I don't even know what you were getting at with that, honestly. That whole paragraph is a contradictory mess.
Why shouldnt you listen to experience... rly...Railey2 wrote:
Smokeman wrote:
IF your interpretation looks "flawed" or not "quite there yet" in the eyes of clearly more experienced ppl, then you should reconcider what you are doing here. NOONE wants to fuck your shit up. NOONE will gain anything from that. All these ppl modding and giving suggestions do it because they love doing this: mapping songs and helping others.
Now this is something I can get behind. Listen to experience, for it most likely knows better than you do.
The second thing you said is disagreeable again though. People gain something from fucking shit up, and if you observe them for a bit you see that very clearly. They have personal grudges, suck up to other people, or just enjoy their power. They defend their own opinions vigorously once they are out instead of backing down in an argument, because nothing is harder than admitting that you were wrong. That can lead to pretty nasty situations, where the one with less power has no other option left than following along. Generally, there can be plenty of reasons why people fuck shit up. Not to say that QAT's are essentially evil, but they aren't angels either. They are human, and humans tend to be unfair every once in a while. You got to look out for that, and not deny it by saying "but they don't have nothing to gain".
IMO the system isnt corrupt. I am also a strong believer of everyone speaking out his thoughts. I got surprised you read that sentiment out of the post tho (i was quite shoked dude).Railey2 wrote:
Smokeman wrote:
if you cant accept that then just dont rank it man.
One last time, please please stop with this sentiment. This is what a system looks like that can't accept criticism and change.
"oh you think theres something wrong with the system and you feel like it could be improved? Hah, fuck off then"
That is not what you want. Definitely not.
Spaghetti wrote:
You're arguing over spilled milk.
Thanks, I'll just see what I can do it to improve it now.ohad1881 wrote:
00:07:693 (1) - why here did you put a nc on the strong beat and 00:02:893 and 00:05:293 you didn't? Hm.. I'd say because the NCs are indicators for pattern changes.
00:35:893 (1) - i don't see a reason for this nc Alright.
00:40:843 (4) - you are leading to a strong vocal here so why stop the flow and stack? 3 is the strong beat, therefore the jump between 00:40:543 (2,3) - , however 4 is not as strong, and it feels like a leftover, a stack goes well because I am able to do an other jump with the vocals right after.
01:00:493 (3) - nc? 01:00:043 (1) - here remove The better choice indeed, rearranged some NCs here.
01:01:694 (5) - i feel like you should give more emphasis on this by a bit spacing it, it's to close and weird to play imo. There's no justification for emphasization here.
01:06:493 (1) - ^^ Sure.
01:09:343 (2) - ^^ I could but I feel like it's forcing it too much, I slowed down with the pascing from here 01:07:693 (1) - and then resumed it here 01:10:993 (1) - . I think leaving it as it is is the better choice.
01:19:543 (8,9,1) - you are leading to a big place with a lot of vocals here, i feel you should show it by spacing it much more. mb you can stack the end of 01:19:693 (1) - with 01:19:243 (6) . Actually this goes nicely for various other reasons as well, changed.
01:22:093 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,1,2,1) - seems like here you ignored what is coming next, you are leading to something big so why not showing it, i really think you should space this part a bit like here 03:26:893 (5,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - It could work, but how am I ignoring what's coming next? The pattern is pretty intense. The first pattern has more back and forth movements compared to the second one, and both has special looking structure.
01:49:693 (1) - way to close for this vocal imo. I agree, changed some other pattern so it became like that, fixed.
01:52:093 (4) - nc here and also space it. NC V, no spacing change.
01:54:118 (2,3) - i saw a lot of problems with this one, so i can suggest to make this slider 01:53:893 (1) end here 01:54:118 (and mb you can silence the end) Pattern changed.
02:06:493 (1,2,3,4) - you can space every note in gradation, the vocals are becoming stronger every note. If I wanted to do that I'd follow the drums, but I am following the ringing sounds which stay the same.
02:26:293 (4) - ctrl g? strong beat. Sure.
02:37:093 (3) - you can make it more symmetrical. Should be better now.
03:12:943 (4,5,6) - space it Why? I don't think it is justified.
04:05:293 (1) - you can improve it, use grid snap. Too lazy, symmetry is hard, it looks almost perfect.
04:16:093 (7) - nc? sure.
04:43:993 (1,2) - switch nc? v
04:59:793 (7) - move this slider here 04:59:743 ? Nope, the slider is snapped correctly.
i do feel you can be more consistent in this, and you should check your emphasis on some notes in and before the hype parts.
but as irre wrote, about the huge problem of the consistency of this map and the overmapping, i feel like he is wrong, it should be improved of course,but it's not a huge deal... vocals are ok with the emphasis of notes, i didn't see a lot of overmapping actually, and about the consistency, he might not made the same patterns, but he didn't skip vocals, he used spacing and emphasis properly, so i don't see a big problem here tbh.
so what can i say, my speeches will be useless, like every other speeches of an unknown person that no one gives a shit about what he will say, gl avishay.
I guess I'll add those to the tags since there's no Romaji (?) in the album.Narcissu wrote:
花たん - ハジメテノオト
Thanks!Side wrote:
Hi for the M4M :vSPOILER[Beginning]
Intro feels a bit too crazy imo xD I kinda expected this to be a slower section kinda like 04:40:093 - and then it picks up in the verses. I feel in general that would give it a bit more sense of direction but up to you. The ending is slightly energetic and the ending has none, well we could give million reasons for each side but I prefer having it this way.
00:05:293 (3) - NC since it's kinda similar to 00:03:643 (1,2,1) - Erm, fine It was suggested before and it doesn't really matter does it.
00:09:493 (1) - Also remove NC. Sure the slider slows down and looks similar to the previous one but for that reason alone people would give you trouble tbh. Considering it's going the opposite direction as the previous slider and it's not SUPER slow to the point where it would cause confusion the NC doesn't do much other than remove the followpoint and then give you three 1 combo sections which is meh. Alright.
00:52:393 (2,3) - Feels overmapped to me. Pretty sure you would think so too since you did mute the slider ends :v Two normal 1/2 jumps would do just fine here. I guess I will do something else since this was mentioned in the past as well.
00:54:943 (5) - Would be cool if you centered it on that diamond/triangle thing. Pretty sure you could make it work Cool.
01:01:093 (4) - Might be nice to make this a 3/4 slider and a note at 01:01:393 - so the next vocal thing is a clickable object instead of holding through it. Plus then you'd be able to NC that object so you can keep a 4/1 NC pattern going again. That's nice, I am not sure if I should mute the slider end since I don't use this pattern much in such rhythms.
01:03:493 (5,6) - This would be really cool if you ctrl+g'd each slider individually so that you have a circular flow going from slider to slider. Currently they flow a bit awkwardly. Also based on how 01:02:893 (3,4) - do that circular effect already it would be nice for the next two sliders to continue it. The four jump notes right after wouldn't be too hard to reposition without changing the rest of the notes. Redesigned pattern.
01:50:893 (1,2) - Might sound better to follow the drums like you did at 01:48:493 (1,2,3) - but it might be a bit tricky so maybe not :v I'll leave it as it is then
03:11:893 (1) - Add clap to head. Sounds cool Cool artificial rhythm.
03:14:593 (6) - Soft addition on the slider tail sounds cool too imo :v Sure.
03:15:493 (4) - I think this was supposed to be soft whistle/addition? Same with 03:16:993 (3) - and 03:20:293 (3) - To be fair I can't quite see much difference with my stereo but it makes more sense so alright.
03:24:493 (1,2) - Could've totally been a 2/1 slider like 01:19:693 (1) - Could've been, but I wanted something different
03:31:243 (6) - I don't know if this is true or not but some people say this is unrankable to have active hitsounds in the sliderbody because it's unexpected feedback. To avoid any issues this would be better as a shorter slider into a triplet like the hitsounds indicate. If that's really unrankable I'll change it, but I'm pretty sure I've seen it before and that's why I am using it.
03:46:993 (4,5) - Kinda expected an antijump with this pause tbh. That's the pattern I saw for the most part before anyway. You are right, antijump is expected here and I couldn't pinpoint what felt slightly wrong here for me, redesigned pattern to support antijump
04:56:893 (1,2) - Looks nicer if 2 was stacked under 1 slider end or if you did it with a bit of spacing like 04:58:093 (1,1) - maybe That's a nice idea.
Map has a lot of interesting patterns and the jumps are pretty fun. Idk though to me it feels like I'm playing 200 bpm yuikonnu jpop stuff instead of 100 bpm slow ballad music xD I kinda expected less movement and somewhat slower sliders but that's just me I guess. Probably doing that would be to make it way easier though and I don't think you want that :v Well yeah I never had the intention of slow map and song, I don't really like playing nor mapping those, energy and intensity that goes along with the song is fun, which is what I aim for.
Anyway hope this helps. Good luck!
Baraatje123 wrote:
00:38:593 (4,1) - Such low ds Made a slight different pattern, please recheck this.
00:50:893 (1,2,3,4,5) - Way too forced Errrrrrrr.. Alright, I guess I'll remap it to present the beats better, I want to avoid DQs.
00:51:868 (5) - Remove whistle from body please ^
00:56:443 (6,7,1) - DS is a bit confusing here, same spacing, different rhythm Yeah, requires a bit of reading skills but this pattern plays just fine, NC helps a bit and it is relatively commonly used.
01:00:193 (6) - Silence end?
01:01:093 (4) - ^^
01:13:693 (1) - ^^ Sure ^ ^ ^
01:53:293 (1,1) - Might be difficult to read, space the circle closer to the slider Alright.
02:43:093 (3) - Drum sample feels weird, as it isn't used otherwhere Pretty sure I am using the drums in other parts in the song, regarless as long as it sounds fine and doesn't ruin the experience I will let it stay.
02:47:218 (6) - Sure this is there? The other 1/8 feel fine, but this one is a bit weird This one is great, triplet on held vocals that end on a new vocal and a nice slider.
03:16:393 (1,2,3,1) - Feels forced, and the end feel weird (if you don't change it to make it less forced, at least silence the ends) Okay, as I agree that it feels a bit too forced, I remapped this pattern and made some modifications to the section afterwards, please recheck this too
04:24:943 (3,1) - ^^
Call me
As for the jumps, they're fun and might be a bit harder than your usual *insert this kind of song* map, but it seems appropriate for the high difficulty and it goes well. The only sections that can't really have big spacing are the one after the kiai and the one at the end of the song, but some mappers would still use big spacing patterns or idk.-Nya- wrote:
Heya~ Responding to your request in-game.Beginning:Same :3
- The preview point isn’t snapped. Snap it to 00:59:443 –
- 00:09:343 –Clear beat here. Even if you’re following that ping sound, it still won’t hurt to map that beat imo. Well you pretty much said why I don't want to map it
- 00:23:293 (5) –I would add NC here and remove NC here: 00:23:593 (1) – The strong beat is on: 00:23:293 (5) – Just because the strong beat is there it doesn't mean the NC should be there, having the NC there would be more confusing than helpful, the NC indicates no more anti jump and new stanza.
- 00:24:493 (1) –Don’t you think this jump might be too much? Since the music is calm. More instruments are getting into the music, and I want to emphasize the vocals anyway, so it goes nicely.
- 00:28:543 –A note here would fit nicely. I'm pretty sure I had a note here before, but it simply didn't work that well, the note between the beat and the vocal is not that significant so I left it at that.
- 00:43:693 (3) –NC here? There’s a strong beat there. I rearranged the NCs, some SV used to exist and now they're gone.
- 00:43:693 (3) –Dang, this is a big jump, lol. I suggest you try easing down on a jump like that. The music is still calm. Regardless it's really fun, it flows really well and it goes with the strong note, nobody else mentioned it and I think it's great.
- 00:54:793 (4,5) –Since the (5) has to be clicked faster than the previous circles, can’t you maybe move them a bit closer together to make that clearer? Actually it was like that until someone suggested placing 5 in the triangle to make it look cooler, it's not that hard to read with the AR and 5 is relatively closer than everything else, it doesn't really affect gameplay.
- 01:02:893 (3) –Imo, the NC should rather be on the large white tick, since that’s where the beat is strong. But I decided to start it on the vocals, there's nothing wrong with that, is there?
- 01:05:293 (2) -^,etc. ^
- 01:12:193 (4,6) –Ugly overlap. Try to avoid them touching. Yeah, you're right, fixed.
- 01:14:893 (5) –NC here and remove NC here: 01:15:193 (1) – V
- 01:16:543 (1) –I wouldn’t place a NC here. V
- 01:53:293 (1) –You didn’t place a slow slider like this anywhere else in the previous part of the kiai so it may cause confusion. I suggest you return the SV to normal there. I will keep it, it's still the first kiai just cut into 4 parts lol, it's a small thing of mine I'd like to keep.
- 02:12:493 (3) –NC?
- 02:14:893 (3) -^
- 02:17:293 (2) -^
- 02:19:693 (5) –NC here and remove NC here: 02:20:293 (1) – I made some changes to the NC in this section ^ I don't really want to spam too many, I use them in SV changes and big music gaps.
- 02:48:193 (1) –I don’t understand why there’s a single NC here >.< Oops, lol.
- 03:18:493 (3) –NC Not necessary, the previous NC are due to SV changes.
- 03:19:093 (5) –NC here and remove NC here: 03:19:243 (1) – Cool.
- 03:58:093 (1) –Same as 01:53:293 (1) –
Eh, your NC’s are very inconsistent and can use more work imo. I mean, in some places you placed a NC on the white tick (like it actually should be imo) and in other places you didn’t. NC’s should usually be placed where the beat is the strongest. (You’re probably going to tell me that ranting on about NC’ing is stupid, but the wrong NC’ing can affect a map badly imo) I'm not really going to rant, usually I have reasoning but thank you for finding some unreasonable NCs.
Then, I only like pointed out two jumps at the beginning of the song, cuz I felt it would be useless to point out every single one if you’re not going to fix any in any case, but I really feel, especially at the beginning where the music is calm, that you shouldn’t go all out with jumps since they don’t support the music that well at all.
I don’t know, Avishay. In my eyes, this can still be improved. This kind of map is not really my style, so I guess it’s mostly just my own opinion though.
Thank you very much for clarifying some big stuff, I'm still sure 'consistency' by some people means same music = same pattern, but I can relate to your points easily.pishifat wrote:
from el queueo
so i see 5 pages of mapping debate and after skimming through it i understand nothing
from what i see on the surface though, the map was disqualified for ignoring consistency and the song itself, while your response was that it's your interpretation and consistency isn't needed. (if i'm wrong then my b)
with that in mind, i don't know if how open you'll be to this stuff, but i'll try anyway lol. first, being consistent with rhythms usually only matters for the most important sounds. nobody's going to care if you have 01:00:493 (1,2,3,4,1) - 01:02:893 (3,4,5,6) - using slightly different rhythms since you're essentially clicking on the most important sounds for both Someone should've mentioned this to me earlier, although a lot of people seem to disagree, it looks like they are just mad because I don't have the exact same 2 patterns for the same part of music. I agree with the bold statement.
what does stand out as bad is ignoring the more important sounds inconsistently. 03:08:293 (6) - the sound on the tail here repeats itself 3 other times in the song: 01:00:493 (1) - 01:03:793 (6) - 03:06:193 (5) - so why is this the only one where you're not emphasizing it at all? would using this rhythm actually harm your intentions, or am i just unable to understand the intentions here
01:17:893 (1) - vs 03:22:693 (7,1) - they're both getting the hold thing, then only one is putting pressure on the emphasized sound. i dont really understand how it could just feel better to not click on the downbeat in one instance and not the other like what
01:39:793 (3) - vs 03:44:893 (1) - clear empahsis on one one and completley ignoring the other pourquoi
00:02:743 (2) - im sure someone's mentioned this one before. you've got the first strong sound completely unemphasized while you emphasize it everywhere afterwards. how bad is it to do a triple into a strong sound? based on some stuff i read on earlier pages you're in favor of that, so like when teh music supports it what's the issue with doing it lol I did it because the triplet just felt wrong, I can't really explain why, perhaps it was poor implementation or whatever, eitherway I tried something new with a triplet, hopefully it's fine.
there's also some things that aren't necessarily inconsistent with anything yet still are gross. i can see why you'd do a few of these, but it's really easy to follow the instruments you consider strong while still following what's conventionally strong
02:05:143 (2,3) - 04:37:543 (2,2) - i see your intentions of ignoring the white tick since there's no piano there, but how different would this be? it's clear that the piano is what you're following since it's the only sound, then when there's another louder sound present, you're not ignoring it for the sake of just following one instrument (which would sound dumb) I don't really find this dumb tbh, it's not like I completely ignored it, the player is supposed to play the pianos here while letting the other instruments join in if they want, and I find it completely fine.
04:40:093 (1,2,1) - 04:43:093 (2) - focus should be on the downbeats and the introduction of the vocal thing, rather tahn ignoring those and emphasizing the less important stuff Those are fine, first slider is vocal ending, and the second slider is supporting the long held vocal, the downbeat is still felt and it's fineee.
02:40:693 (3) - yea um Honestly it's just fine for various reasons.
you also mentioned how the 1/8 was all now either in the music or used for emphasis, but what's with 03:48:493 (1,2,3) -
emphasis into a slider where the reverse actually has the more emphasized sound whattttttt oooooops I totally forgot abou the clap in the reverse, fixxx
another thing that the dq mentioned was spacing, which doesn't really seem to be that addressed either. just like what i said for the introduction to the rhythms thing, all you really need is the most important sounds emphasized. 03:34:693 (2,3,4,5,1) - nobody's going to care about how 4 technically should be more emphasized than 3 when you've clearly got 1 with major emphasis
01:16:993 (1,2,3) - anyone can tell there's major emphasis on 3, yet you're not showing that through mapping at all. especially offputting when you perfectly show proper spacing to represent intensity half a second before this at 01:16:243 (4,5,6) -
04:10:093 (1) - 03:22:093 (3) - some major sounds that you're emphasizing equally to unemphasized sounds Actually this is a common thing to do to keep the pattern well, 04:10:093 (1) - increasing the spacing here would destroy the nice and consistent spacing throughout this section, I did emphasize this with the slider shape. 03:22:093 (3) - self explanatory I think.
01:59:893 (2,3,1) - 00:54:793 (4,5,1) - 1 there would be one of those major sounds while the thing before 1 = minor zzzzz youve seen me complain about this before ha First one fixed, second one is a recent change and honestly 1 is not a that strong note compared to 00:55:693 (3) -, the whole pattern is really fun and cool this way.
comboing is what i understand the least here. people either choose to place new combos according to musical phrasing, vocal phrasing, or patterns, yet you're doing all three and some more that i dont evne comprehend xd
01:36:043 (7) - vs 03:40:843 (1) - you're even using the same rhythm/placement concepts and they're inconsistent
01:27:493 (1) - vs03:32:293 (2) -
01:48:493 (1) - 01:49:693 (1) - vs 03:53:293 (5) - 03:54:493 (4) - the first kiai seems to be doing it according to phrasing, then the second is some way that is beyond me
03:17:293 (1,2,1,2,3,4) - you've got the same thing repeating 3 times, so like putting a new combo on 3 to express that would make sense. as it is now, does 03:17:893 (1) - need its own combo?
03:19:693 (5,1) - 03:43:693 (1,2) - you've got a lot of these 1/2 stack things. keeping new combos on either the first object or the second object would make snese, but switching all the time doesn't really make much sense
03:12:493 (3) - vs 01:07:693 (1) - really how different are these? they're both symmetric stuff following the same rhythms so likeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
I think the reason for the inconsistencies in the NCs is because the different patterns, the patterns somehow represent the NCs by themselves and it self misleads me, heh.
when modding your last map, i kind of already said all that i had to about movement. some stuff like 01:31:243 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - gets really uncomfortable with transitions into sliderbodies and momentum based jumps stuff so you know what i would say
some other unrelated-to-anything things
00:10:393 (2,4) - 00:24:343 (4) - 00:14:593 (3) - and some other 15% stuff -- while really low volume sliderends are fine, when you cant get enough feedback from stuff you're clicking on, it's kind of uh bad. this really shouldnt be controversial at all lolz You could call it lazy keynote hitsounding, I did it just for the beginning (xd). The 15% does leave small feedback while giving the emphasization to the actual strong notes afterwards, like 00:10:993 (5) - 00:24:493 (1) - 00:14:893 (1) -
04:36:943 (5) - the um why's this ending on a 1/8 tick Listen closely, 25% playback rate
one of the really big overall things that i don't understand is how you structured your main slider velocities. i understand the small changes depending on pitches and stuff (which i don't really agree with to the extent you're doing, btu that's not the point). what i dont get is how you mostly use 1x sv up til the second kiai, then increase it for the sake of showing intensity.
by that logic, you should probably have been showing intensity through your primary slider velocity prior, but you've got the same 1x for the super calm intro as you do for the first kiai lol I agree to some degree, but I don't find the intro as weak as everyone makes it. Unlike the sections at the end and after the first kiai, which obviously I did map accordingly imo.
tried to explain stuff as clearly as possible so it got a little too wordy haha. bye!!
Nope, but I know just how much youKrfawy wrote:
#1
Have I ever told you how I hate Japanese vocals?