Shiirn wrote:

Yauxo wrote:

(I dont care if you try to defend your map, just dont act like it's perfect)

I never said it was perfect. I've applied many mods just today. Most people I've spoken to like the map a lot, just a vocal minority like to find any reason to dislike the map.

Most pro player input I have gotten is that it plays very well for the most part and any parts that feel directly unfair as opposed to challenging are being found and weeded out.

The raw aesthetic rule of " you need to make sure no notes overlap and the map has the exact same style the entire map" is not going to happen here. If you want it to happen here, you're looking for the wrong map. Having a stringent rule of "sliders need to point directly at the next note or it is ugly" is just as silly. If you want to say "its all just a god damn mess" then have fun. I won't accept "change it because it looks bad" as a mod.

Most of the input I've gotten since the disqualification has been "shit from the thread, value from in-game". The people that are speaking their mind in this thread without giving specific advice (or are telling me I mapped a section wrong because they'd do it differently and refuse to see any sort of alternative) are completely useless. The people who chat with me in-game and discuss actual pattern shape and flow are far more valuable. As such, I'm going to give them the attention they deserve.



I'm going to go over Comfort with a very fine toothed comb over the next day while seeking (and going over already posted) input from people whom I know aren't just making shit up because they vaguely find the map disagreeable. After that, I'm going to work back towards qualification. If it gets DQ'd again, so be it. I will not be fillibustered out of ranking something I know is not just rankable, but pretty good. And Comfort is pretty good. It's nowhere near perfect, but perfect is unobtainable as there will always be people who think it should be different.

CXu wrote:

Still, I don't think writing opinions is useless. Maybe you do, but eh.

1. 00:04:978 (4) - phrase starts here again so put NC here too, RNC at 00:05:395 (1) then
2. 00:05:707 (4) - you might nc this, too like you did at 00:02:374 (1)
3. 00:09:040 (5) and 00:09:561 (1) - different NC'ing again. although the first time the phrase is ending abruptly, i still recommend to keep them the same (just seems the most logical then to me)
4. 01:51:957 (2,3) - ^ different NC'ing in the last part too ;w;
5. 00:04:249 (1,2) - how it comes that so different from 00:10:915 (1,2) ?
6. 00:12:374 (5) - NC issue like above
   
7. 00:20:082 - shouldnt there be a wubbly slider here?
8. 00:19:353 (1) - and 00:32:686 (1,2,3,4) - sounds actually similiar (and this sound is on the same spot in the repetition) if you remove your hitsounds. so make it the same too? this is a structure issue in ther way that, as a player you wont notice that it's actually the same again (thus map feels more random)
9. 00:16:020 (1) - not as important but its a different style compared to 00:22:686 (1) - but why tho
10. 00:17:270 (2) - where are my 1/6? (compare to 00:23:936 (2,3,4,5) - at the repetition). on a second note NC'ing is different here again but the music making differences here too so yea
11. 00:33:311 (3) - 1/1 is really bad. the jumps and NC should start at the sliderend. anyway it is completely different mapped to 00:20:186 (6,1,2,3,4)
12. 00:48:311 (4) - slider is off the synth, at 00:47:374 (3) you acrificed the strong drum to get the slider togethere with the synth. you basically did it all the time before so its kinda suprising to get off the synth-line/track here. make it like at 00:51:853 (1) (altough thats not exactly the repetition but it has the same rhythm)
13. 00:55:186 (2) - ctrl+g would flow waaay better. also i think pursuing the previous pattern is out of place as the music changes here
14. 00:56:228 (4) - where are your 1/8 drum following sliders now huh^^ (see 01:26:020 (1,2) - mentioned in IRC). i still think you should remove hte 1/8 sliders at the second time tho^^
15. 00:55:968 - ^ same as above, add your 1/8 stream here then?
16. 00:59:561 (1,2) - ctrl+g, still think it would flow awesome
17. 01:01:436 (2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,6) - why not some scratch-mapping like at repetition at 01:08:311 (1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3)
18. 01:01:645 (3) - anyway this finish is on wrong spot it should be at 01:01:540 - i think this additional finish sounds awesome tho, so maybe instead add one at the repetition also missing out the finish at 01:02:999 -
19. 01:08:520 (2) - finish should be here like at ^
20. 01:14:249 (6,1) - dafuq o.o? this should be like at 01:20:915 (1,2)
21. 01:22:895 (1) - you didnt NC at 01:16:228 (4) tho
22. 01:28:207 (4) - here you sacrifice the strong drum to follow the vocals, 01:27:374 (5,6) - here you didnt do this exactly
23. 01:29:353 (1) - even tho the vocals are having a kind of a break here i think it is still more appropriate to make the NC at 01:29:561 (2) at the white tick/beginning of vocals (if even a NC is needed at all). i actually would make 2xcircle+2xslider at 01:29:353 (1,2,3,4) - (instead of the current 2xslider+2xcircle rhythm)
24. 01:35:915 (1,2,3,4) - please make NC'ing and maybe similiar rhythm too (2xcircle+slider+circle) like at ^. this is again almost a repetition.
25. 01:30:811 (4,5,6,7) - i know what youre are going for here but, this looks very similiar mapped when you followed the vocals, so when youre playing you also expect that. use a more different looking pattern here pls :s
26. 01:48:832 (3) - isnt this slider like completely wring here? sounds like this to me: http://puu.sh/n90ca/202f3329c4.jpg ((5,6) are on 1/12 snap if you wanna map them)
27. 01:49:353 (7) - NC here? theme is coming back again after that jazz like piano shout-in. you also did sth similiar at 01:50:915 (1)

1. 00:03:728 (2,3,4,5) low spaced - 00:10:395 (3,4,5,6) high spaced. logic
2. 00:04:249 (6,7) - 00:10:915 (1,2) - why the different rhythms
3. 00:28:311 - where did all my wubbly sliders go in the repetition of this part 00:14:978 - ?
4. 00:32:686 (1,2,3,4) - 00:19:145 (5,1,2,3) - make them the same? more memorisable then, too not mentioning its actually completely the same thing again
5. 01:07:999 (1,1,2,3) - 01:01:332 (1,1,2,3,4) - map them in kinda the same way? at least fix that slider 01:01:332 (1)

1. 00:02:374 (1) - remove NC. compare to 00:08:311 (1,2,3)
2. 00:08:728 (2) - for same reason as above make this also a repeat slider or the other an antijump-non-repeat-slider
3. 00:48:520 - 00:49:145 - 00:49:457 - "The Disappearance of whistle-chan". it really hurts, i wold rather remove the drum-hitsounds for that. the normal-whsitles are exclusively for the special synth of this part (while the drum HS are basiclal everywhere) so at least keep it consistent.
4. 00:54:874 - 00:55:395 - 00:55:603 - same as ^, you could actually put them on the sliderend, sliderbody, sliderbody so why not add them if you can?

phaZ wrote:

[ongakus insane]

1. 00:02:374 (1) - remove NC. compare to 00:08:311 (1,2,3) applied
2. 00:08:728 (2) - for same reason as above make this also a repeat slider or the other an antijump-non-repeat-slider Kind of confused here...
3. 00:48:520 - 00:49:145 - 00:49:457 - "The Disappearance of whistle-chan". it really hurts, i wold rather remove the drum-hitsounds for that. the normal-whsitles are exclusively for the special synth of this part (while the drum HS are basiclal everywhere) so at least keep it consistent. remade patterns and applied hitsounds for consistency
4. 00:54:874 - 00:55:395 - 00:55:603 - same as ^, you could actually put them on the sliderend, sliderbody, sliderbody so why not add them if you can? same here

very consistent

1. 00:03:520 (1) - I feel like this NC doesn't really belong here at all. Yes, you are showing that the song has changed instrument/intensity, but this is such a small change/sound that it just doesn't matter at all. I'd either take the NC off from this or 00:03:728 (1) - as there is no need to have both here. If you choose to let these, then you might want to add a NC to places like 00:04:561 (2) - since the intensity change here is much more interesting to emphasize with a NC and you didn't do it.
   
2. 00:05:915 (5,2) - Nazi - these aren't perfectly stacked
   
3. 00:08:311 (1,5) - ^
   
4. 00:09:561 (1,2) - ^, but this isn't really my issue with this one. The fact that you have a counter-logical movement between the end of (6) and (1) is already a big issue usually, but then (2) just simply has a unnatural movement that plays extremely awkward and feels like just a gimmicky pattern made for the sake of it. The song doesn't really support "going back to where you wre before" so there's no need for something like this. If you really want to keep something like this in a way that I can support it, then you can go full tengaku and do this. Note that the screenshot also suggests a good new placement for (3) which does play kinda awkwardly, but still much better than what it is now.
   
5. 00:10:082 (1,2) - Badly stacked, and same issue as before, however this isn't as big of an issue because there is a break before. Still not something I fully support, but I believe you won't want to change this.
   
6. 00:11:645 (1) - This slider has a few issues. It's not perfectly blanketing (2)'s sliderend, also looks really ugly with the curve from the previous slider barely touching it, aaaand also it flows really badly, as it is forcing you to make an unnatural movement (going up following (2), then you have to instantly go right and up->left again to follow (1). If you don't mind about the blanketing, then the solution to fix the flow will be ctrl+G'ing (1) and (3) like this, which results in a much more natural movement and doesn't break your pattern in any way.
   
7. 00:13:936 (1,2,1,2,1,2,3) - As a tap player I don't really like these jumps and I feel like they aren't really nice to alternate as well due to their movement and distance, but I may be wrong here, so I won't really suggest you to change, just a small quick comment
   
8. 00:15:290 (2,3,4) - Yes, I get your point with the spacing difference you're using here. Yes, it does follow the song to a certain extent. But then here comes the biggest issue of it all: Does it *actually* play well and intuitive? A player might be easily able to sightread/play this spacing, but it still doesn't make up for the fact that it is not as enjoyable to play. The biggest problem here, however, is that the song does support jumps like these, but you still have to find a way to make them play better than they do right now. These sudden changes in spacing and flow are what makes the map 'choppy' to play for most people, it's not even about the blanketing or the crazy 288 jumps. I know that this was done on purpose and you may want to keep them since it is the essence of the map, but if you ever think about changing it, then, in this case, stacking (3,4) would make it better as you're not exactly going through a weird spacing change and is just playing a stacked note which is a much more interesting cursor movement. If you really want to keep this, though, then at least properly blanket (4) with (1)'s start.
   
9. 00:15:707 (5,6) - Unnatural movement, as explained before (this also looks a bit ugly for me but it may be just me). It doesn't really make the pattern much prettier, but turning the slider around like this may make it nicer to play.
   
10. 00:16:645 (3,2) - Nazi, these are not perfectly stacked. Don't forget to fix 00:17:999 (4) - if you care about this!
    
11. 00:17:999 (4) - I'd reeeeeally really rotate this slider slightly so you actually make a star movement when playing (right now, (4)'s length makes you have to go up instead of going straight to (5) which may be creative, but doesn't exactly play nicely). Rotating this by -30º using selection centre worked nicely for me.
    
12. 00:19:874 (4,5) - I already talked about these so it's your choice if you want to keep them. There's something about this one that makes it really confusing for me to sightread and I end up pressing (4) thinking it's a slider. This may be an issue you might look out for, since in a 7.5* map you really need to make these things more intuitive. It may be an issue to another DQ later.
    
13. 00:21:228 (3) - It may be just me, but the intensity jump between (2,3) is much bigger than (1,2), so you may want to emphasize this better. Something like this does the trick for me, but it may feel weird/ugly to you (and it also kills your pattern ;_;). Still, it's a better attempt to follow the song, in my view.
    
14. 00:22:895 (1,2) - I feel like the spacing between these two is way too low... This is almost the spacing you've been using for 1/8s, while you just had a few 2.40x 1/4 jumps. Intensity is pretty much the same so I don't see why use this as a spacing rest. If you think about changing this, doing this would be a nice way to fix it (and also the pattern looks prettier in my eyes).
    
15. 00:23:311 (3) - Nazi, but this isn't perfectly stacked with 00:22:478 (4) - .
    
16. 00:23:936 (2,3,4,5) - Nazi as well, spacing between (4,5) is different than (2,3,4).
    
17. 00:27:686 (1,2,3,4) - Something about this pattern just makes me not like it. Maybe it is the fact that (1) is almost touching (6), the fact that the sliders are way too curved or (3,4)'s repeats just being way too unintuitive, like you don't know when to start holding each slider and when to stop (aside from looking at the approach circles, but let's be honest, who does this nowadays, especially in a 7 star map). I don't.. really have a suggestion for this, sorry I just don't want to break your mapping so I'll leave it up to you if you want to do something about this/how you want to do it.
    
18. 00:28:832 (4,5,6) - Same issue as 00:15:290 (2,3,4) - so I won't really blabber about it again, just if you want to fix this, placing (5) at 496;152 works fine and creates a nice kind-of-triangle between (2,3,5).
    
19. 00:30:811 (3,6) - Pretty weird blanketing here, (3)'s start is much farther away from the smaller slider than the ending is, but there's a bigger issue here:
    
20. 00:31:332 (6) - You're missing a clickable sound at 00:31:436 - . I won't go around explaining the basics of how beats have to be clickable & etc so I'll spare you the details and send you up a suggestion on how it could be made using the mapping logic you used here.
    
21. 00:33:311 (3) - Same as 00:30:811 (3,6) - , seems like a ctrl+> fixes this one instanty though.
    
22. 00:34:249 (1,1,2,3,4) - This one just feels extremely unintuitive to play because the spacing just goes much different than what you've been using for the past 5 seconds or so. I think something like this should work better while using your mapping logic. Note that 00:34:249 (1) - is stacked over 00:33:832 (3) - .
    
23. 00:36:540 (1) - This slider looks slightly ugly, so I'll be giving you a code with a better curve if you want, here
    
24. 00:37:061 (1,5) - Nazi - not perfectly stacked
    
25. 00:37:895 (1) - Nazi - moving the last sliderpoint to 252;192 makes this blanket look a bit better
    
26. 00:38:311 (3) - ^, moving the middle point to 268;48 does the same thing
    
27. 00:39:457 (2) - Nazi again, doesn't perfectly stack with 00:38:936 (3) - . I know these are really annoying and small but I'm just pointing them out for the sake of "if you don't want to fix them that's completely fine, if you want to fix them it's a small improvement"
    
28. 00:40:186 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,4) - haha tengaku memes xD

Yauxo wrote:

Clarification: I just use flow as a word that explains mapinternal intuitive movement (and maybe placement). Not subjective "I like what I do, but yours is bad" flow.

Natsu wrote:

I'd love to see you reply to mod, specially to the ones you ignore (Hula's one for example), to be honest without reply its hard to know what is going on with the map.

Axarious wrote:

General

1. when i say the "slider points back towards where it came from" i think it's more of the problem that the slider body is in the way of the sliderhead, which makes it a bit harder to read and aim it (players might hit the sliderbody instead of the actual target)

Comfort

1. 00:05:603 (3,4) - looks a bit cramped, perhaps move (4) to 404|281 for a parallelogram and ds fix? Moved and re-positioned the pattern slightly to accurately stack.
2. 00:09:561 (1,2) - and 00:10:082 (1,2) - i think these two look kinda out of place, the low ds between them isn't consistent with the rest of the first 12 seconds Blanketted the first (1) and spaced out the second.
3. 00:27:582 (6,1,2,1) - this ds is a bit wonky to me, it plays like a stream but it's kinda like a weird square thing, maybe something like this or something? Reworked. This was driving me crazy, this is the best suggestion I've gotten on it ever. thanks.
4. 00:32:686 (5) - i think remove nc here and add nc here 00:32:895 (4) - would make it a bit easier to read Done
5. 00:33:311 (4,1) - these nc's on the blue ticks are all a bit hard to read, but i'm not sure if you can really do anything else here :v i know right
6. 00:52:270 (3,4,5) - this ds increase is really awkward to play reworked it a bit
7. 00:52:686 (1,2,3) - the movement for this is doable, but it feels a bit unnatural Reworked a bit, hope it's more readable, the beats here are prime to be rather jerky but i dont want it outright confusing
8. 01:05:395 (4,5,6,7,8,9,1) - this also feels quite unnatural/messy to play, it's also hard to hit, i think i get it 1 in 10 tries
9. 01:08:520 (2,3) - whoa this is weird to play. additionally, 01:08:832 (4) - this is 1/3 as well, i think this rhythm would be a bit better done
10. 01:14:040 (5,6,1,2) - this ds change is kinda weird, but i guess it's okay, it's hittable most of the time I actually fixed this just now after your playtest. Glad we both saw it!
11. 01:17:478 (1,2) - not a big fan of this right -> left movement and the slider points towards where it just came from, perhaps something that'll keep the player moving like this? Rotated and turned
12. 01:18:520 (1,2,3) - i don't hear a sound on 3, only the pitch raise from (1,2) I clearly hear three sounds even at 100%, although they kind of blend a bit together, it'd be far worse to just have a 1/8 double sitting around where the rest of the map never does that
13. 01:20:603 (4,5) - kinda same idea with the slider pointing back towards where it came from, huge loss of momentum
14. 01:27:061 (3,4) - ^
15. 01:28:103 (3,4) - ^ Not entirely sure what to do with these as there aren't many other ways i can map them without putting them at a completely different location.
16. 01:29:874 (4,1) - two things, one is ^, the other is that the following pattern is difficult to read-there's a pause and that stack with the round slider, iunno, not a big fan of that pause there This thing is ridiculously hard to map. I'm going to try to fix it, hold my beer.
17. 01:30:915 (5,6,7) - i think (6) should be moved to 341|243 and ctrl j'd to keep momentum in this slider pattern done
18. 01:32:374 (7,1) - slider points towards where it came from
19. 01:34:353 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,6) - this is all very weird, 01:34:874 (4) - and 01:35:395 (4,5) - are probably the hardest to hit out of these Reworked it a little bit.
20. 01:45:395 (2,3,4,5) - perhaps HJ 00:05:395 (1,2,3,4) - this thing if you decide to fix the small ds :p Done

Ongaku wrote:

phaZ wrote:

[ongakus insane]

1. 00:08:728 (2) - for same reason as above make this also a repeat slider or the other an antijump-non-repeat-slider Kind of confused here...

Thanks for the mod!

Hula wrote:

no kds, cos got it previously.

[Ongaku's Insane]

solid map. good rhythms, placement and flow btw.

00:04:249 (5) - Blanket the 6 better, that's the whole point of this slider :p fixed
00:26:645 (2) - Not quite perfect blanket with previous slider. fixed
00:38:311 (6) - Blanket fixed

00:46:332 (2) - Could you make this out of the previous 1 slider? and ctrl shift S it please? it's like 1 pixel out, keeps bugging me everytime i go in editor haha. applied :v
00:47:478 (4) - Blanket fixed
00:49:978 (8) - NC. applied
01:05:707 (3) - blanket fixed
01:24:353 - How come no object here? Maybe turn 01:24:145 (1) - into a repeat slider? applied

edit: fixed a bit of grammar.