1. osu! forums
  2. Beatmaps
  3. Beatmap Graveyard
show more
posted
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
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

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)
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
02:40:693 (3) - yea um

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

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
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

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
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

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
04:36:943 (5) - the um why's this ending on a 1/8 tick

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

tried to explain stuff as clearly as possible so it got a little too wordy haha. bye!!
posted

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!!
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.

Whatever wasn't commented on was fixed.
posted

#1


Have I ever told you how I hate Japanese vocals?
posted

Krfawy wrote:


#1


Have I ever told you how I hate Japanese vocals?
Nope, but I know just how much you hatelove me.

Thanks!
posted
So, I guess Krfawy rebubbled #1?

Well, the map isn't your usual but I think that's okay too (of course, up to the QAT's to decide whether its reaally okay or not), but after playing the map myself, talking with Avishay and watching some play (Frost's liveplay, awesome!!) I think it's okay.

Checked some stuff over IRC. I wish you good luck!
Bubble #2!

22:45 appleeaterx: 00:03:643 (1) - off? or is that on purpose for playability
22:45 Avishay: on purpose for playability
22:46 Avishay: 1/16 doesn't seem like a wise solution lol
22:46 appleeaterx: sounds more like 1/6 tho, idk xd
22:46 Avishay: it's snapped one 1/16 tick backwards
22:46 appleeaterx: oi leave it then
22:47 appleeaterx: 00:06:493 (3,4) - ugh idk why but when playing it felt so weird that these were so close
22:47 appleeaterx: like
22:47 appleeaterx: all the sounds have those clap thingies
22:47 appleeaterx: but all spaced differently, and (3,4) really close
22:48 Avishay: tbh I can't really see the issue here or why it's weird
22:49 Avishay: I have the whole pattern thought pretty well
22:49 Avishay: movements and spacing wise to emphasize what's needed, 00:06:643 (4,5) - those are pretty much the same so they're stacked
22:49 appleeaterx: 00:39:493 (2,1) - reason why its antijump here?
22:49 appleeaterx: sound on (1) seems pretty noticeable for a calm section
22:49 Avishay: yes, the slow vocal
22:50 Avishay: it's a little game with the whole pattern
22:50 Avishay: it starts with this
22:50 Avishay: 00:38:593 (1) -
22:50 Avishay: and ends with this 00:39:793 (1) -
22:51 appleeaterx: 01:12:493 (4) - nc here instead?
22:51 Avishay: sure
22:52 appleeaterx: 01:15:493 (4) - kinda expected a large jump here? i mean most of the times u have a clap the jump is largerrrrrr
22:52 appleeaterx: (example right after this 01:16:543 (5,6) - )
22:53 Avishay: lol I can relate but I have no idea where the hell I should put the note then
22:53 Avishay: I think that's why it's like that in the first place xd
22:53 Avishay: so the pattern forced it into this position
22:54 appleeaterx: http://puu.sh/m41F7/8408a5b028.jpg
22:55 appleeaterx: idk something like that, did that in literally 3 secs
22:55 appleeaterx: 01:40:693 (6) - sad slider cuz no hitsound :c
22:56 Avishay: weps
22:56 Avishay: added
22:56 appleeaterx: 01:42:043 (4,5,1) - lol so confusing... equal spacing different snaps, and especially with this map you cant rely on AR or something cuz everythings everywhere
22:57 Avishay: okay changed
22:59 appleeaterx: so this is kinda minor but also not, maybe itll explain something: 01:53:293 (1) - 03:58:093 (1) -
22:59 appleeaterx: the difference between those sounds: nothing
22:59 appleeaterx: difference between SV
22:59 appleeaterx: you know, its not that everything has to be precisely consistent
22:59 appleeaterx: but if its everywhere
22:59 appleeaterx: you will notice it during gameplay
23:00 Avishay: the difference in the SV is mainly because of the difference in the two kiai sections
23:01 appleeaterx: just a tip for your next map(s) xd
23:01 Avishay: also the patterns that precede are not the same .-.
23:01 appleeaterx: (if you plan on staying here after finding out how ranking system works lmao)
23:01 Avishay: oh believe me I see how it works very well xd
23:01 appleeaterx: oh, i mean that in general because the SVs in your map change like every <insert small amount here> seconds
23:02 Avishay: if I find them appropriate I see no reason not to lol
23:02 appleeaterx: you can see how they are appropriate,but if a qat member doesnt its rip
23:03 Avishay: well I pretty much explain everything when mentioned, there's a lot of thought and time wasted into the crap I do
23:03 appleeaterx: "crap" xdd
23:05 appleeaterx: but i guess your view of mapping is that the song should be judged on each second and not 5 min long same stuff >->
23:05 Avishay: pretty much ^
23:05 Avishay: this is why I never map dnb lol
23:05 Avishay: becsue it is the same thing
23:05 Avishay: OVER AND OVER
23:05 appleeaterx: xdddddd\
23:05 Avishay: but I'll admit playing it is fun
23:06 appleeaterx: and the pp it gives
23:06 appleeaterx: gives the illusion i can actually play the stuff i icon while in reality i cant
23:06 Avishay: yess
23:06 Avishay: arrghrghrgh
23:06 appleeaterx: 03:31:243 (6) - wasnt a fan of this tbh ;( , i kinda like smashing keys when there are strong sounds like that lol
23:07 Avishay: but but vocalssss ;;
23:07 Avishay: I was and still am about in a dilemma about this lol
23:07 Avishay: I said to myself that if many people mention it as a problem I'll change it
23:08 Avishay: but lmao people find it acceptable
23:08 Avishay: I can barely play my maps because I spend so much time on them so I memorize them even if I don't want to, so I suck at playing and testing them after a while zz
23:08 appleeaterx: 03:51:193 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - gotta say this is pretty cool with the vocals
23:08 appleeaterx: i cant play my own maps either
23:09 appleeaterx: unless i use HR or something cuz then its not the same anymore
23:09 appleeaterx: but i suck at HR
23:09 Avishay: I KNOW LOL
23:09 Avishay: and yes vocals too gudddd
23:10 appleeaterx: 04:36:493 (1,2,3,4,5) - because of the cymbal crash before this, theres a extra loud sound here that goes on and on
23:10 appleeaterx: so it makes those barely audible
23:11 appleeaterx: gives almost no feedback, prehaps increase the volume a bit just for that section?
23:11 Avishay: seems right
posted

appleeaterx wrote:

So, I guess Krfawy rebubbled #1?

Well, the map isn't your usual but I think that's okay too (of course, up to the QAT's to decide whether its reaally okay or not), but after playing the map myself, talking with Avishay and watching some play (Frost's liveplay, awesome!!) I think it's okay.

Checked some stuff over IRC. I wish you good luck!
Bubble #2!

22:45 appleeaterx: 00:03:643 (1) - off? or is that on purpose for playability
22:45 Avishay: on purpose for playability
22:46 Avishay: 1/16 doesn't seem like a wise solution lol
22:46 appleeaterx: sounds more like 1/6 tho, idk xd
22:46 Avishay: it's snapped one 1/16 tick backwards
22:46 appleeaterx: oi leave it then
22:47 appleeaterx: 00:06:493 (3,4) - ugh idk why but when playing it felt so weird that these were so close
22:47 appleeaterx: like
22:47 appleeaterx: all the sounds have those clap thingies
22:47 appleeaterx: but all spaced differently, and (3,4) really close
22:48 Avishay: tbh I can't really see the issue here or why it's weird
22:49 Avishay: I have the whole pattern thought pretty well
22:49 Avishay: movements and spacing wise to emphasize what's needed, 00:06:643 (4,5) - those are pretty much the same so they're stacked
22:49 appleeaterx: 00:39:493 (2,1) - reason why its antijump here?
22:49 appleeaterx: sound on (1) seems pretty noticeable for a calm section
22:49 Avishay: yes, the slow vocal
22:50 Avishay: it's a little game with the whole pattern
22:50 Avishay: it starts with this
22:50 Avishay: 00:38:593 (1) -
22:50 Avishay: and ends with this 00:39:793 (1) -
22:51 appleeaterx: 01:12:493 (4) - nc here instead?
22:51 Avishay: sure
22:52 appleeaterx: 01:15:493 (4) - kinda expected a large jump here? i mean most of the times u have a clap the jump is largerrrrrr
22:52 appleeaterx: (example right after this 01:16:543 (5,6) - )
22:53 Avishay: lol I can relate but I have no idea where the hell I should put the note then
22:53 Avishay: I think that's why it's like that in the first place xd
22:53 Avishay: so the pattern forced it into this position
22:54 appleeaterx: http://puu.sh/m41F7/8408a5b028.jpg
22:55 appleeaterx: idk something like that, did that in literally 3 secs
22:55 appleeaterx: 01:40:693 (6) - sad slider cuz no hitsound :c
22:56 Avishay: weps
22:56 Avishay: added
22:56 appleeaterx: 01:42:043 (4,5,1) - lol so confusing... equal spacing different snaps, and especially with this map you cant rely on AR or something cuz everythings everywhere
22:57 Avishay: okay changed
22:59 appleeaterx: so this is kinda minor but also not, maybe itll explain something: 01:53:293 (1) - 03:58:093 (1) -
22:59 appleeaterx: the difference between those sounds: nothing
22:59 appleeaterx: difference between SV
22:59 appleeaterx: you know, its not that everything has to be precisely consistent
22:59 appleeaterx: but if its everywhere
22:59 appleeaterx: you will notice it during gameplay
23:00 Avishay: the difference in the SV is mainly because of the difference in the two kiai sections
23:01 appleeaterx: just a tip for your next map(s) xd
23:01 Avishay: also the patterns that precede are not the same .-.
23:01 appleeaterx: (if you plan on staying here after finding out how ranking system works lmao)
23:01 Avishay: oh believe me I see how it works very well xd
23:01 appleeaterx: oh, i mean that in general because the SVs in your map change like every <insert small amount here> seconds
23:02 Avishay: if I find them appropriate I see no reason not to lol
23:02 appleeaterx: you can see how they are appropriate,but if a qat member doesnt its rip
23:03 Avishay: well I pretty much explain everything when mentioned, there's a lot of thought and time wasted into the crap I do
23:03 appleeaterx: "crap" xdd
23:05 appleeaterx: but i guess your view of mapping is that the song should be judged on each second and not 5 min long same stuff >->
23:05 Avishay: pretty much ^
23:05 Avishay: this is why I never map dnb lol
23:05 Avishay: becsue it is the same thing
23:05 Avishay: OVER AND OVER
23:05 appleeaterx: xdddddd\
23:05 Avishay: but I'll admit playing it is fun
23:06 appleeaterx: and the pp it gives
23:06 appleeaterx: gives the illusion i can actually play the stuff i icon while in reality i cant
23:06 Avishay: yess
23:06 Avishay: arrghrghrgh
23:06 appleeaterx: 03:31:243 (6) - wasnt a fan of this tbh ;( , i kinda like smashing keys when there are strong sounds like that lol
23:07 Avishay: but but vocalssss ;;
23:07 Avishay: I was and still am about in a dilemma about this lol
23:07 Avishay: I said to myself that if many people mention it as a problem I'll change it
23:08 Avishay: but lmao people find it acceptable
23:08 Avishay: I can barely play my maps because I spend so much time on them so I memorize them even if I don't want to, so I suck at playing and testing them after a while zz
23:08 appleeaterx: 03:51:193 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - gotta say this is pretty cool with the vocals
23:08 appleeaterx: i cant play my own maps either
23:09 appleeaterx: unless i use HR or something cuz then its not the same anymore
23:09 appleeaterx: but i suck at HR
23:09 Avishay: I KNOW LOL
23:09 Avishay: and yes vocals too gudddd
23:10 appleeaterx: 04:36:493 (1,2,3,4,5) - because of the cymbal crash before this, theres a extra loud sound here that goes on and on
23:10 appleeaterx: so it makes those barely audible
23:11 appleeaterx: gives almost no feedback, prehaps increase the volume a bit just for that section?
23:11 Avishay: seems right
Thanks applexxx!

If anyone has concerns about stuff in the map please contact me or post here, I don't mind discussing my choices and thoughts if necessary.
posted
As Avishay can't qualify this, he asked me to do it
posted

Lasse wrote:

👀
posted
Regrats Avi !
posted

appleeaterx wrote:

Well, the map isn't your usual but I think that's okay too (of course, up to the QAT's to decide whether its reaally okay or not)
Lol... If you are uncertain whether it goes through the qualification process or not, don't qualify it at all? .-.
posted
good luck, really like this map :3
posted
Thanks guys!
posted
wow loctav gonna be pissed again..

(i might throw in a mod but i think more qualified ppl will show up anyway)
posted
Hello Avishay,

after checking your map again I have decided to pull it out of qualification again for the following reasons:

  1. 00:06:493 (3) - This sound should be emphasized more than the rest, yet it has lower spacing than the objects before.
  2. 00:09:493 (4) - It doesn’t make too much sense that this is the same slider as before, adding no NC indicates the slowdown even less. I can see you try to emphasize this sound in a special way, but you should try your best indiciating it, then.
  3. 00:12:943 (4) - Why stacked? There is no real reason to keep it stacked, as the song regurlarly goes on. You only achieve the player to awkwardly stop here, and this really doesn’t fit the songs mood.
  4. 00:13:693 (1,2,3,1) - Is there any structure behind these objects? For me they really only look like you’ve placed them pretty arbitrary.
  5. 00:43:693 (1,2) - Again, the stack. You kill movement and emphasize nothing in the song.
  6. 00:45:793 (3,1) - Feels sorta random to me. First of all why this shape and why does it not properly follow to the next note? The way she is saying “anata” is calling for a neat pattern, maybe keep the same slidershape and try working with rotating?
  7. 00:50:293 (3,4,1) - It really feels like that something went horribly wrong here with the hitsounding.
  8. 00:52:093 (1) - This should probably be a slowdown according to the rest of your piano, or whatever you tried to emphasize, emphasis.
  9. 01:10:993 (1) - You say you want to emphasize the vocals.. but why is this such a low spacing? Whatever you are argueing with, it’s really contradicting.
  10. 01:16:543 (5,6) - Really high spacing compared to the rest of the map. Nothing special to be found either here.
  11. 01:24:943 (1) - Inconsistent NC with 01:27:493 (2) -
  12. 01:41:143 (7) - Again, the stack.
  13. 01:43:243 (4,5,6) You have only used this once and it doesn’t fit at all. Why are you not using circles like you did before?
  14. 01:53:293 (1) - What’s the reason of this sudden slowdown? This sound appears quite often and suddenly you make a slowdown here after an intense build-up.
  15. 01:50:893 (1,2) - 03:55:693 (1,1) - these 2 are basically the same thing vocal-wise but comboing and slidervelocity are completely different for both cases without any apparent reason.
  16. 02:03:193 (1,1) - There’s clearly no sound these circles could be mapped to. If you listen closely with 25% speed you will realize that there’s just a quiet sound on the blue tick.
  17. 03:43:093 (6) - if you mainly focus on capturing the intensity of the vocals with this map why do you ignore vocals here and in several other places too
  18. 04:12:493 (1) - Is there any reason for this repeat slider? I’d suggest using a circle instead.


As you can see, there are the same points listed up over and over (mainly stacking, consistency, slowdowns) etc. I can not see this map in the ranked section in its current state and you should keep improving your map to get it there eventually. Consistency is actually really important, especially when you try to do special stuff such as slowdowns. At least, we’ve got rid off the overmapping which is a good sign and a step into the right direction.

Good luck with further processing.
posted

Irreversible wrote:

Hello Avishay,

after checking your map again I have decided to pull it out of qualification again for the following reasons:

  1. 00:06:493 (3) - This sound should be emphasized more than the rest, yet it has lower spacing than the objects before. It's not really strong.. Regardless I did give it some emphasization with the sharp movement from the previous notes.
  2. 00:09:493 (4) - It doesn’t make too much sense that this is the same slider as before, adding no NC indicates the slowdown even less. I can see you try to emphasize this sound in a special way, but you should try your best indiciating it, then. I had a NC on it before then, however some people suggested that I remove it because various reasons, regardless you are not really supposed to be able to hit everything perfectly on sightread.
  3. 00:12:943 (4) - Why stacked? There is no real reason to keep it stacked, as the song regurlarly goes on. You only achieve the player to awkwardly stop here, and this really doesn’t fit the songs mood. I agree with you to some degree, there's no real reason to have it stacked, however it is not awkward, the current pattern goes really well, just before the movement with the slider there's a reall small halt, which is fun.
  4. 00:13:693 (1,2,3,1) - Is there any structure behind these objects? For me they really only look like you’ve placed them pretty arbitrary. In shape and size? Not really, in movement? Yeah. You could say that the shapes are the way I thought of the song, but it doesn't really matter, the movements here are great.
  5. 00:43:693 (1,2) - Again, the stack. You kill movement and emphasize nothing in the song. I do emphasize 00:43:693 (1) - with the big jump, then comes the really weak note that starts at 00:43:843 (2) - and because it's weak I represented it with the anti-jump.
  6. 00:45:793 (3,1) - Feels sorta random to me. First of all why this shape and why does it not properly follow to the next note? The way she is saying “anata” is calling for a neat pattern, maybe keep the same slidershape and try working with rotating? I don't really understand why, I'll tell you why I did use this, first of all the shapes do go well with the "anata", then there's the extended vocal slider, the note that starts at 00:46:093 (1) - is really strong so I've wanted to have some emphasization with the previous slider, therefore the anchor on the previous slider.
  7. 00:50:293 (3,4,1) - It really feels like that something went horribly wrong here with the hitsounding. Really? Why? There isn't really anything to have hitsounds on 00:50:593 (4) - and the drum sampleset before then goes really well with the music.
  8. 00:52:093 (1) - This should probably be a slowdown according to the rest of your piano, or whatever you tried to emphasize, emphasis. I can't really see a problem here, it's completely fine.
  9. 01:10:993 (1) - You say you want to emphasize the vocals.. but why is this such a low spacing? Whatever you are argueing with, it’s really contradicting. Pretty sure I've said that before, but the emphasis comes with the movement from the circle-ish slider and the increased SV.
  10. 01:16:543 (5,6) - Really high spacing compared to the rest of the map. Nothing special to be found either here. Obviously there is the strong drum, but you are probably asking now why didn't I do the same to 01:15:493 (4) - ? The answer is because of the pattern structure, 01:14:893 (1,2,3,4) - slider into (relatively) big spaced circle and bla bla pattern continues, 01:15:793 (1,2,3) - then this starts (with great nice halt at 01:15:493 (4) - ) and then 01:16:243 (4,5,6) - which is a slider into a not so big spaced circle and then the real thing is kickin', regardless I feel that it plays pretty good.
  11. 01:24:943 (1) - Inconsistent NC with 01:27:493 (2) - To be fair, there used to be a NC until pishi mentioned that it was incosistent with 03:32:293 (2) - , but I don't really think it has anything to do with 01:27:493 (2) - maybe the fact the the vocals start on both of those notes but I don't really go with that.
  12. 01:41:143 (7) - Again, the stack. I admit that this could have been not stacked, but this was mainly done to emphasize 01:41:143 (7,8) - , I wanted a complete opposite direction movement into 8, and this works well too because the sliderend and 7 are the same sound.
  13. 01:43:243 (4,5,6) You have only used this once and it doesn’t fit at all. Why are you not using circles like you did before? Why is it a problem that I did not use this again? The important thing is the notes that are getting emphasized, and those are obviously the drums, it plays really well and is just a different pattern to this pattern in the music.
  14. 01:53:293 (1) - What’s the reason of this sudden slowdown? This sound appears quite often and suddenly you make a slowdown here after an intense build-up. You could probably take a look at the other tens of responses I gave on this.
  15. 01:50:893 (1,2) - 03:55:693 (1,1) - these 2 are basically the same thing vocal-wise but comboing and slidervelocity are completely different for both cases without any apparent reason. Because it has no affect on the play at all? Both patterns are emphasizing the vocals in different ways and are just fine?
  16. 02:03:193 (1,1) - There’s clearly no sound these circles could be mapped to. If you listen closely with 25% speed you will realize that there’s just a quiet sound on the blue tick. I'm 1000000% sure that there are notes there, use an audio software to see yourself, regardless, even if there are none, this gives the player something to play with the transition instead of an awkward gap.
  17. 03:43:093 (6) - if you mainly focus on capturing the intensity of the vocals with this map why do you ignore vocals here and in several other places too Because there's nothing wrong with following instruments as well, just because I mainly focus vocals does not mean I should follow them preciesly all of the time.
  18. 04:12:493 (1) - Is there any reason for this repeat slider? I’d suggest using a circle instead. Yes, the sounds on the head and the reverse are similar and it gives a nice repetition effect.


As you can see, there are the same points listed up over and over (mainly stacking, consistency, slowdowns) etc. I can not see this map in the ranked section in its current state and you should keep improving your map to get it there eventually. Consistency is actually really important, especially when you try to do special stuff such as slowdowns. At least, we’ve got rid off the overmapping which is a good sign and a step into the right direction.

Good luck with further processing.

Avishay wrote:

If anyone has concerns about stuff in the map please contact me or post here, I don't mind discussing my choices and thoughts if necessary.
Just because I don't use the same pattern over and over, nor have a clear structure through out my maps it doesn't mean everything is random and put out without thought, I really think that this is just plain nitpicking, hope my explanations are understandable.
posted
Okay it's dead, honestly, I'm not going to try and rank anything until something changes, I'm tired of this, let the bias and narrowminded QAT keep everything on.
posted
lol
posted
hey me too, thanks!
posted

Avishay wrote:

Okay it's dead, honestly, I'm not going to try and rank anything until something changes, I'm tired of this, let the bias and narrowminded QAT keep everything on.
You overmap and think that consistency isn't important, what do you expect? And you also use dumb excuses for something that is really unrankable, as we can see in your response of Irres post. Nice dude.
posted

Stjpa wrote:

Avishay wrote:

Okay it's dead, honestly, I'm not going to try and rank anything until something changes, I'm tired of this, let the bias and narrowminded QAT keep everything on.
You overmap and think that consistency isn't important, what do you expect? And you also use dumb excuses for something that is really unrankable, as we can see in your response of Irres post. Nice dude.
There is a huge difference between Unrankable and DQ'able. The map is not unrankable, only DQ'able. There are no objective facts which can result in this being Dq'ed, only subjective, something QAT and BN often have a different view on
It's a shame to see this going to grave, but oh well, your choice
show more
Please sign in to reply.