Report about the map looks valid, please achieve a consensus with the community.
Natsu wrote:
gonna bring my opinions on this as well:anyways gl with this
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.)
- 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.
- 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.
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 :/
Hi! I didn't notice you here.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
Not trying to start shit but why doesn't this apply to any HW maps?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.
Community-driven checks are not wrong, it's that the vocal community that are doing these "checks" have the wrong mindset. The vast majority of modders are people that cannot play the map as it is intended, and so can only judge a map through editor, which is a lot different than actually playing the map and actually EXPERIENCING it.Voli wrote:
After reading all this I'll probably not try to rank a map ever again with these new "'community-driven" checks nobody ever wanted and nobody asked for. Seeing how ranking your map is already a very long and hard process, especially if you are an unknown mapper, the tiny amount of effort it takes for anyone to be able to DQ a map is just outright stupid.
I agree, they are not wrong, but with the current system of ''any complaints are DQ-worthy so we can discuss first, then have fun repeating the cycle again'' it just doesn't feel worth it anymore to try to rank a map. It causes stress, worry and anger more than it has positive sides. If there was a quick way to instantly re-rank a map without having to go through all this bullshit every time, maybe then it would work.a loli wrote:
Community-driven checks are not wrong, it's that the vocal community that are doing these "checks" have the wrong mindset. Looking at a map through editor is a lot different than actually playing the map, which is the problem with difficult maps; most of the modders can't play the map as it is intended so they base all their claims in the editor.
All this leads to is a chain of "have-to-do" mods, giving an end result of a map that doesn't in the slightest resemble the original.Voli wrote:
I agree, they are not wrong, but with the current system of ''any complaints are DQ-worthy so we can discuss first, then have fun repeating the cycle again'' it just doesn't feel worth it anymore to try to rank a map. It causes stress, worry and anger more than it has positive sides. If there was a quick way to instantly re-rank a map without having to go through all this bullshit every time, maybe then it would work.
That is correct. Also the whole concept of ''coming to a concencus with the community'' isn't thought through at all since the community obviously has varying opinions seeing as it consists of completely random players, each with their own opinions. Seeing this, it is impossible to come to a good ''concensus with the community'' without transforming your map into an everchanging mess of clashing opinions. Every map has people who like and dislike it.a loli wrote:
All this leads to is a chain of "have-to-do" mods, giving an end result of a map that doesn't in the slightest resemble the original.
maps that come up at the top of my head are tengaku and toumei elegy
I couldn't have read every post in this thread as right now I'm kinda too busy trying to be not busy, this post has gotten my attention; and for a good reason. This is a well made post that I completely agree with. With current mindset of "mappers" or "modders" its very hard to achieve such a system.Avishay wrote:
I honestly feel like the one at fault for the current state of the beatmap is the community rather than Shiirn, I bet Shiirn wants to make as many people as possible satisfied, but that's not really possible for this one.
It is good that the qualification is even more community-driven right now, but as long as mapping is an abstract subject with so many ways of interpretation, there WILL BE people that dislike a map, be it a pattern, a structure, you can't satisfy everyone, this game is different for everyone, one might like the surprising intensity changes, another one will enjoy the huge jumps, BUT CMON, people can't agree on everything, especially on such a song and unorthodox map.
Shiirn tried his best to change the difficulties in a way that will feel appropriate for most people, but people nag on stuff that were changed due to previous suggestions, in the end it is not just Shirn's map, but just a mixup of opinions that might and might not make it enjoyable for some people.
Please, if you don't want to see this ranked, if you don't like the way it is mapped, or you just simply dislike this thread, LEAVE, if you don't want to see this map appear on your browser, tell me and I'll create a script that hides it, just for you.
Forlornly wrote:
Having said that
Extra
00:59:353 (4,5,6) - requires insane control and velocity change, especially considering the direction the cursor is coming in at from the previous (3) slider. i get that inconsistency is a theme in this map but this part is so much harder than the rest of the map; i think there should be SOME consistency when it comes to patterns and difficulty. ( 00:59:353 (4,5) - were originally in a position closer to THIS, which I feel is much more sensible with the pattern, but it got complaints about "flow" because it's a 4,5 being fairly close together with a large jump to 6 without it being big enough to "feel" like a jump. This is one of those "Fixes" I'm happy to undo and return to its original state - but I don't always remember exactly what I did originally until someone points it out.
01:35:707 (5,1,2,3) - not sure if anybody else had this problem but this is bizarre rhythmic/spacing choice and it's very hard to read. that would be fine, but there's nothing else of the sort in any other part of the map, and again i think there should be SOME consistency in the map This is the end of the entire section and the departure of the vocals, and they follow the vocals in a very off-beat way. This is very bizarre to play, but that's intended. On Discomfort, it plays differently because the song continues the (much easier to follow) repeated click pattern. On extra, it's purely off-beat but also requires little to no movement, so it's a different sort of challenge I guess. not entirely sure what to do to extra because it's such a mess now.
these are the two things that stood out to me the most, everything else is perfect imo
Chyo-Kun wrote:
I will drop my piece of opinion about the Discomfort diff, be it ignored or not by the mapper:
00:12:895 (1,2,3,4) - I get what you're tryng to represent here and it's a good concept, but you can still keep the feeling AND nerf the jump to make it more playable. The big issue with doing any sort of spacing nerf here is that the movements lose context due to all of the notes (except 4) being on previous notes. (1 used to be underneath 00:12:270 (4) - ). The spacing is ridiculous, I totally agree, and it fits what I'm trying to do, but is just a bit crazy big. But I can't shrink it either without completely restructuring the pattern. I'll probably fiddle with this some more one day, but today is not that day.
01:13:311 to 01:25:290 - I love this part, the climax with the bigger spacing feels awesome and fits very well into the song, but 01:26:645 this next part is a little less lively yet you've kept similar spacing and difficulty, which in my opinion should be lowered to go along better with the song Due to how the song is structured, decreasing the spacing of things such as 01:27:061 (3,5,7) - would also necessitate the movement or re-structuring of 01:27:999 (2,4) - , 01:28:728 (4,6) - , 01:29:353 (1,3) - , I think you get the picture. The spacing is, indeed, large, but in a different vein from the burst of the first kiai because the second one alternates very quickly between sliders and circles, rather than the first kiai's nearly PURE circles, so the actual difficulty is lower due to the lower click density. This is one of those "It looks like the spacing is the same in editor" but "actually plays much easier" situations. I really appreciate how you noticed this, though, as it gives me a chance to explain my reasoning as to why I chose to keep such ridiculous-at-a-glance spacing.
These advices are really vague and would require, if applied, a partial re-map of those sections (which I can tell by your other posts aren't willing to do) but even if applied wouldn't "fix" the map from a technical point of view, it's still awkward with all the spacing/flow "issues"