-Kanzaki wrote:

Extra :
01:42:895 (1,2) - 01:43:520 (1,2) - These are emphasized just as same do you really believe these should be emphasized as the same and you think these are both strong. I believe second one isn't strong as the first one making that flows breaking as same on both isn't really good. They're slightly different and that's good enough for me.

01:28:415 (1) - the thing you followed with this slider 01:28:624 - is actually also here too, why leave empty Because the voice is a fucking nightmare to time and it's better to leave empty so it's not confusing as hell.

01:50:082 (1,2,3) - I don't know while what i am going to say is subjective, breaking flows this much on this sounds are way too much for me i don't think they are so strong to be like others. Flow doesn't matter here.

00:22:061 (2,3) - 00:15:395 (3,4) - I believe these are similar sounds on the song but the spacing is really different why is that The spacing is like, maybe a dozen pixels different and even the movements are similar....?

00:18:728 (3,4) - I totally don't agree with this spacing this one is calmer than others but spaced this much as same as others not good. Can you even play this difficulty? 1/4 spacing at 144 bpm between circles and sliders is actually extremely easy. I think you played it like once.

00:34:561 (3,4) - This could be high spaced like 00:29:561 (2,3) - and actually 00:34:561 (3,4) - is stronger than this too. The entire point is that the sharp movement is on 2,3. After that, 4 is simply ending the pattern, the spacing being low is irrelevant.

01:29:249 (4,5) - Not strong enough to flow break like this much again. Any suggestions regarding "flow" will be discarded. I intentionally break flow, and if you disagree with how I break flow, just call me a shitty mapper.

00:47:061 (4,5) - 00:50:395 (3,4) - aren't these similar some sort of spacing again different and way too much on first 50:395 has a much harder 1/4 roll after it that is the focus of the pattern. 47:061 focuses on the 1/6th roll and emphasizes that.

I don't know check if you agree or not most of them is subjective but generally this diff's flows are hell for me and does not plays good for me at all. That's just unfortunate then. I don't want to channel hollow wings here but if it plays badly for you, good. Not everyone is capable of playing maps intentionally made to bring challenges other than "1/2 jumps" and that's completely fine.

EvilElvis wrote:

Extra :
00:26:540 (2,3) - no-no this is the right one i guess 00:26:645 (3) - is actually representing the background 1/4 tremble. It plays fine.
Others are just suggestions:
00:31:332 (3,4) - would help keep strong beats clickable Strong beats being clickable is irrelevant. These two sliders are very simple to hit and are meant to be that way. Literally doubling the number of clicks to make sure that the strong beats "get their due" would make the experience completely different.
00:32:165 (2,3) - i'd say I disagree. I'm okay with how the current click patterns are.

There was more but i can't post all of them right now, if there will be a need in continuing this mod poke me via pm or something

Shiirn wrote:

In the interest of saving everyone's time, especially helpful passerby modders, let me say this:

Anything that is not directly unrankable and can be classified as "subjective" or "issues with consistency" will be subsequently denied.

Please don't waste my or your time as I have gone over every inch of this map and while I don't believe it is perfect nor that it reaches my vision of what this map can be, it is viable enough for the purposes of ranking. Anything that can be mentioned regarding consistency is inconsistent for a reason. You may not like the reason, but unless you are a QAT specifically going to DQ the map because you disagree with me, we're going to have to live with said disagreement staining our lives forevermore.

If you're disappointed in me as a mapper or you don't like this map: I don't care. This map started off as a simple happy, vibrant, barely contained explosion of energy, and now it's just a pile of conflicting opinions from people I barely respect, much less like, who forced themselves onto the map as if it were their civic duty to make me "see the light" and "accept consistency".

Shiirn wrote:

Extra :
01:42:895 (1,2) - 01:43:520 (1,2) - These are emphasized just as same do you really believe these should be emphasized as the same and you think these are both strong. I believe second one isn't strong as the first one making that flows breaking as same on both isn't really good. They're slightly different and that's good enough for me.

01:28:415 (1) - the thing you followed with this slider 01:28:624 - is actually also here too, why leave empty Because the voice is a fucking nightmare to time and it's better to leave empty so it's not confusing as hell.

01:50:082 (1,2,3) - I don't know while what i am going to say is subjective, breaking flows this much on this sounds are way too much for me i don't think they are so strong to be like others. Flow doesn't matter here. How flow doesn't matter on anywhere anyway. You are adding a feeling with that flow and it makes player get excited on here. But you say it doesn't matter

00:22:061 (2,3) - 00:15:395 (3,4) - I believe these are similar sounds on the song but the spacing is really different why is that The spacing is like, maybe a dozen pixels different and even the movements are similar....? It is not similar difficulty

00:18:728 (3,4) - I totally don't agree with this spacing this one is calmer than others but spaced this much as same as others not good. Can you even play this difficulty? 1/4 spacing at 144 bpm between circles and sliders is actually extremely easy. I think you played it like once. I am asking you why did you map this same as others while it is calmer in song. You are telling me it is also easy to play like others???

00:34:561 (3,4) - This could be high spaced like 00:29:561 (2,3) - and actually 00:34:561 (3,4) - is stronger than this too. The entire point is that the sharp movement is on 2,3. After that, 4 is simply ending the pattern, the spacing being low is irrelevant.

01:29:249 (4,5) - Not strong enough to flow break like this much again. Any suggestions regarding "flow" will be discarded. I intentionally break flow, and if you disagree with how I break flow, just call me a shitty mapper. Yea i will make screen jumps on calmest parts of the song too.

00:47:061 (4,5) - 00:50:395 (3,4) - aren't these similar some sort of spacing again different and way too much on first 50:395 has a much harder 1/4 roll after it that is the focus of the pattern. 47:061 focuses on the 1/6th roll and emphasizes that.

I don't know check if you agree or not most of them is subjective but generally this diff's flows are hell for me and does not plays good for me at all. That's just unfortunate then. I don't want to channel hollow wings here but if it plays badly for you, good. Not everyone is capable of playing maps intentionally made to bring challenges other than "1/2 jumps" and that's completely fine.

1. 00:26:540 (2,3) - is pretty obvious that your rhythm is following the song in the wrong way, I checked your reply to Elvis mod and still don't make much sense, the 1/4 thing already started before that, following the active beats is what will be more intuitive, actually every suggestion from Elvis is not subjetive o.o, but really objetive talking about correct rhythm ofc.
2. 00:27:895 (1,1,1,1) - spamming combos looks nice? because the stream is pretty much the smae 1/4 the only thing that changes is that is stacked, so the only NC that you need is 00:27:895 (1) -
3. 00:57:999 (1) - 01:01:332 (1,2) - 01:04:665 (1) - 01:07:999 (1) - why are these mapped in different way ? since is the same music at both places, unless your rhythm is inconsistent on purpose, I don't see any other reason to do this. Just make 01:01:332 (1,2) - like the other ones.
4. 01:09:665 - sounds super weird that you are ignoring this loud beat :l
5. 01:42:895 (1,2) - Why are you doing the manual stack at this kind of patterns now, when you didn't before for example 00:02:895 (1,2) - , looks inconsistent and not something that we gonna expect from an experienced mapper, specially whe multiple people are telling you to be more consistent with this map.
6. Also there are a bunch of inconsistencies, overall the design is poor made IMO, and there are a bunch of blankets off, I mean if your archive is to make rankable maps then is fine, but I really think you could do alot better than this, specially with tiny stuff like blankets to important stuff as is the rhythm of the song >:

1. 00:08:311 (1,2) - 1,0 spacing, but 01:06:645 (1,2) - 1,10 here, seems there is a small error
2. 01:40:811 (1,1,2) - here too

Natsu wrote:

gonna bring my opinions on this as well:

1. 00:26:540 (2,3) - is pretty obvious that your rhythm is following the song in the wrong way, I checked your reply to Elvis mod and still don't make much sense, the 1/4 thing already started before that, following the active beats is what will be more intuitive, actually every suggestion from Elvis is not subjetive o.o, but really objetive talking about correct rhythm ofc. The first click is following the same pattern as the notes before it. The 1/2 after it is following the fairly subtle 1/8 triple starting 00:26:645 - and ending 00:26:749 - and at the end of the slider. Because it'd be incredibly confusing and hard to play such a combination of clicks, it's a simple slider instead.
2. 00:27:895 (1,1,1,1) - spamming combos looks nice? because the stream is pretty much the smae 1/4 the only thing that changes is that is stacked, so the only NC that you need is 00:27:895 (1) - This NC was purely for aesthetic reasons and for further emphasizing what made these four beats different. If it's directly unrankable, go call a QAT.
3. 00:57:999 (1) - 01:01:332 (1,2) - 01:04:665 (1) - 01:07:999 (1) - why are these mapped in different way ? since is the same music at both places, unless your rhythm is inconsistent on purpose, I don't see any other reason to do this. Just make 01:01:332 (1,2) - like the other ones. The second one starts with the DJ scratches, the rest are all the same. Consistency issues like this are intended. You want my reasoning, you've got it. Now you can disagree with it and I'll be the one who's wrong.
4. 01:09:665 - sounds super weird that you are ignoring this loud beat :l Because the wacky slider is clearly following the scry. not every bass beat needs a click. (HEATHENRY, i know.)
5. 01:42:895 (1,2) - Why are you doing the manual stack at this kind of patterns now, when you didn't before for example 00:02:895 (1,2) - , looks inconsistent and not something that we gonna expect from an experienced mapper, specially whe multiple people are telling you to be more consistent with this map. Originally, the "manual stacks" were different because I had a cohesive theme to the map. After the explosion of the kiai. the spacing was more rickety and less perfect because all of the energy of the song has been expended and it's now just falling apart as the song ends.
6. Also there are a bunch of inconsistencies, overall the design is poor made IMO, and there are a bunch of blankets off, I mean if your archive is to make rankable maps then is fine, but I really think you could do alot better than this, specially with tiny stuff like blankets to important stuff as is the rhythm of the song >: name every single blanket and every single aesthetic change that provides no change to direct gameplay and i'll happily fix them if you offer to work with me to re-rank the map. Otherwise, it's clearly not important enough for either of us to get worked over on.

anyways gl with this

shARPII wrote:

Shiirn, can you stop whining here, take a break, go outside, deep breath and come back later.
You're just tilted and it doesn't help anyone here. Don't make me lock this :/

moki wrote:

I liked every version of this mapset, thanks for spending your precious time on mapping this masterpiece.

Okorin wrote:

What i dont understand is why you seem to have little interest in making this map more like your vision of the song again and instead want to rank it as is for the sake of ongaku? I thought you cared more

Loctav wrote:

Sadly, you have to make an agreement with the community, not with the QAT. They won't judge your map anymore. So better put the effort to convince people raising concerns here that this creation is fine as it is or do not try to get it Ranked.