from el queueoThank 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.
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!!
Whatever wasn't commented on was fixed.