1. osu! forums
  2. Beatmaps
  3. Beatmap Graveyard
show more
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
posted
pls revive? ;w;
i love this map
posted

lulu lemon wrote:

pls revive? ;w;
i love this map
posted
revive this map!
posted
should've been ranked tbh
posted
This modding thread has been migrated to the new "modding discussions" system. Please make sure to re-post any existing (and unresolved) efforts to the new system as required.
Please sign in to reply.