[mapping discussion] "punk mapping"

posted
Total Posts
46
show more
Topic Starter
jawns

Endaris wrote:

Okoratu wrote:

"a beat in the song is stressed so stress it somehow in your map to follow the song!"
how vague is this
Many ways lead to Rome.
Except for the one where you don't stress it at all.
That's like not even starting to go one of the many ways.
Yeah, that's why I find it vague. One person can say "this best is stressed in the song, why is it not stressed in your map?", while someone else can say "I don't thin that beat is stressed in the song" or "I think that beat is stressed enough in the map". I think that leads back to the idea off mapping being purely subjective, but the way it was presented in the post, looked to me like it was an objective rule.

Xanandra wrote:

It's okay jawns, I know how it feels when people thinks that your maps are weird. Apparently I am one of the weird mappers too.

Also don't feel so down, you never know if by 2020 this style will become the norm!

In more seriousness though, I am someone that believes that shapes and consistency is what gives structure to a map, and you already have consistency, so try to improve your shapes in your patterns.
thanks for the advice!

Manysi wrote:

Dude, you will be alone in this world with your current mentality. By that i mean the community wont support you, and your ''punk maps'' which is mainly because you refuse critisism. You will get bored of this sooner or later and maybe want to map properly. Take my word, its just a matter of time when you stop or the community will disinherit you if you even mess with them.

Ok, this was too harsh. But i have a very good reason to discourage you from what you are about to do.
I had the same mentality about a year ago when i started mapping. I also thought my maps are great but only because i wasnt able to read them. (couldnt even fc hards) I wanted to map 5* or more and i cant find the words how bad of a decision it was. My maps looked nice but didnt make any logical sense. This affected my whole career in mapping. The moment i got bored of it and wanted to make stuff that i can actually play i had to face reality... I was like: ''wtf is wrong, why do i struggle playing this?'' then I created a discussion in here like you. I thought its the spacing, people ofc didnt understand what i was missing so i had to map for 5 more months to finally realize.

I would say you are safe as long as you dont get lost inside your head and think what you do is special and nobody experienced the same. The difference is they didnt take their first impressions seriously. They were realistic enough to see that they dont know shit as newbies. You are not the special snowflake, at least not yet.

The best advice i can give your is to read this first: t/239778/ then try to analyze older (2010-2011) maps. Keep in mind that what you feel like fitting the music will make little sense most of the time. You have to do it technically by following instruments and try to represent them.
For example pick one like drums for a section and swap to guitar if it gets the dominance. You are free to experiment as long as you make sense with it.
Ask people for further help and accept their advice if you see they are experienced. Hope i could help,good luck!
I think the reason I have a hard time taking criticism, is because I don't feel I have yet gotten any good criticism. I even wrote in the description of Velvet Green: "If you mention the distance spacing, you better have a damn good argument to why it should be changed, besides "It's too inconsistent!"".

People might say stuff like "it doesn't make sense" or "the spacing is bad", but they never seem to give any reasons to do so. I've never liked the idea, that you should blindly take any criticism from anyone who is more experienced than you, when it comes to any creative art form really.

Another reason is, that I enjoy playing the map so much, I honestly don't think I've enjoyed any map as much as this one. Some might argue, that the map is a bit out of my skill level, and I admit, I do have to put on NF when playing it, but I am generally quite good at reading difficult map (I have defeated airman). I can play every part of the song well, apart from the hardest part in the middle.

But if anybody has any criticism, they are willing to explain well, I'll be happy to take it to heart. And if I disagree, it's probably because I have reason to do so.

-[Koinuri] wrote:

jawns wrote:

This is what I mean by "unwritten rules". I don't agree with the idea, that there are thing you should never violate, especially since these concepts seems quite vague.
There's always going to be "unwritten rules" we have to follow in anything, even in arts. Take music for example. It has a lot of theorems on which notes to use, and we don't use many of the 20k hz ish range we can hear because it's already been established by bunch of people that they usually suck and you won't end up with something nice using them. osu! community has slowly developed some rules to address things that work or doesn't work the same way. Some of these can be broken on certain occasion if done right, but you can assume it's going to be bad for the most part.

Additionally, there's one super important rule in osu! you should NEVER break when you're mapping a song, which is "maps should always compliment the song it's mapped to". You can't make a quiet part the hardest section, you can't add streams where there are no sounds, etc. These "unwritten rules" are mostly based on this idea.

I assume you mentioned spacing in your first post because some people pointed that out on your first map. Problem with having large spacing for entire map like your "punk mapping", is that a random sections here and there has huge jumps only the hardest part should have. It makes the hardest part feel normal in comparison and ends up not standing out. It's kind of like how 100% white is theoretically the brightest, but white with shadow look significantly brighter. That's why you need "shadows" in your map aka easier parts with smaller distance, so your hardest part will actually be the hardest. And this is why it's one of an "unwritten rule". By failing to properly making the strongest parts stand out, you are violating the one rule you can't break.

There's nothing vague about these "rules". Through more experience in mapping, you'll realize that they all have valid reasoning behind them.
I agree that a lot of music is based on theorems, and ideas like dividing the song up in fours or threes. This is the reason these two time signatures are the most common, for some reason music made this way is naturally pleasing to listen to.
However, there's also tons and tons of good music, that break these rules, and are amazing, not just despite them breaking these rules, but sometimes because they are breaking these rules. A good example, is coincidentally Velvet Green. The song for the most part doesn't seem to follow a specific time signature, and the rules of music says: "you have to follow a time signature, otherwise the rhythm makes no sense". This song breaks the rule, and it ended up being amazing because of it.

I agree with the "maps should always compliment the song it's mapped to" statement, however there is a clear problem with it. Since both music and mapping is subjective, it's more or less impossible to say that something doesn't compliment the song. The only real time I think you can say that, is when there are hitcircles where there is no music; otherwise it's completely up to the interpretation of the mapper.

And in regards to my own map, I really can't see how everything is so hard that the hardest parts don't stand out. There are a clear difference between the instrumental parts (harder), and the verse/chorus (a lot easier), and in the middle bit, where the BPM increases significantly, it becomes a lot more difficult. I tried removing that bit, and the star rating decreased to 6.18!

And while all these unwritten rules have valid reasons behind them, there can also be valid reasons to break them.
N0thingSpecial
My Friend says he's not to keen on your map.
Manysi
I can say good things. Seems like thats what you wanna hear.
There is something charming about your map that i cant describe. (Idk might be the music or just nostalgia.) And its pretty good compared to my first one.

You didnt give feedback that you understood what i told you. I guess i have to tell you once more: take the path that many others have already taken, or at least start on that. You wont regret it.

Though i feel the compulsion to help you with what i know.

"If you mention the distance spacing, you better have a damn good argument to why it should be changed, besides "It's too inconsistent!"".
00:03:725 (1,2) - 1/1 spacing -> 00:04:178 (3,4) - 1/2. From 3 to 4 is a bigger distance than 1 to 2. This is not inconsistent, its stupid. How am i supposed to tell the difference? You can say: but if you listen to the music... I know. The thing is you have to make it clear to the player what spacing you use. This is a common mistake what almost EVERY new mapper make.

00:04:027 (2,3,4) - is a group of beats with increasing pitch with nothing else happening, right? Then why did you space 4 much further away? This applies to your entire map. It didnt make sense, you had no reason to do this. You should group beats of the same kind and not make random spacing.
Maybe you wanted to make a similar to the previous at 00:04:933 (6,7,8) - because thats the same but only with decreasing pitch.

I could go on for several hours about the mistakes you made but i dont have time for that. As for timing, i would have choosen a song played to metronome to begin with. This kind of stuff is incredibly hard to pull off and i have to admit you did a great job.
-[Koinuri]

jawns wrote:

And in regards to my own map, I really can't see how everything is so hard that the hardest parts don't stand out. There are a clear difference between the instrumental parts (harder), and the verse/chorus (a lot easier), and in the middle bit, where the BPM increases significantly, it becomes a lot more difficult. I tried removing that bit, and the star rating decreased to 6.18!
In this statement, you've admitted to the existence of one of the rules you have to follow, and stated that you (in your opinion) followed that rule. So my point still stands. Some rules can't be broken. I'll address reason on why you're breaking it later on.

jawns wrote:

I agree that a lot of music is based on theorems, and ideas like dividing the song up in fours or threes. This is the reason these two time signatures are the most common, for some reason music made this way is naturally pleasing to listen to.
However, there's also tons and tons of good music, that break these rules, and are amazing, not just despite them breaking these rules, but sometimes because they are breaking these rules. A good example, is coincidentally Velvet Green. The song for the most part doesn't seem to follow a specific time signature, and the rules of music says: "you have to follow a time signature, otherwise the rhythm makes no sense". This song breaks the rule, and it ended up being amazing because of it.
I realize that, that's why I added this statement at the end of the paragraph:

-[Koinuri] wrote:

Some of these can be broken on certain occasion if done right, but you can assume it's going to be bad for the most part.
The key term is "if done right" and "going to be bad for the most part". That song probably breaks rules correctly to make it interesting (I don't really feel like checking your timing). However, did you break them correctly? Can you defend your patterns with valid reasoning based on the song you're mapping to? Without your defense, it'll just wind up as "just another failed attempt to break a rule".

In addition to Manysi's little mod, can you defend:
01:09:215 (5,6,7,8,9,10,1) - This jump is as difficult as the some of the jumps made in previous kiai. Are you saying that this section is as intense as the previous kiai? And are you saying that this section (00:29:698 (5,6,7,8,9,10)) isn't as intense?
02:21:693 (1,2,3) - What about this one? This is THE biggest jump in the entire map. Is this note so strong that it deserves this gigantic jump? Is it THE strongest note?
03:07:763 (6,7) - Second largest spacing. same question as point 2. Additionally, this is one of the very few place you used 1/4 sliders on. What makes this and other 1/4 (such as 03:58:920 (5)) so different that you used a technique you didn't use in the entire map?
03:26:312 (1,2,3,4,5) - The last note's spacing is 3 times as large as the other note. Is it that special?
03:40:908 (1,2,3) - Why is this completely different from 03:42:502 (1,2,3,4)?

Like Manysi said, I can probably point out stuff in your map all day and still not be done.

Yes, many mappers can interpret songs differently. That's where styles comes from. But majority of your spacing is an error, not creativity. It's plain impossible to "interpret" the notes the same way you claim to have interpreted with your mapping technique.
CXu
If you want to break spacing rules, do it consistently. What is your reason for mapping 05:44:372 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - differently from 05:48:582 (1,2,3,4,5) - ? What part of the music made you think they were so different you had to change up how you mapped them?

Can you interpret the same thing several ways? Sure, but to a player that part sounds the same, there's no reason it shouldn't follow the same rhythm and general emphasis on notes. If you want to interpret it differently, do it in a different map or if it comes up in a different section of the song.

You're perfectly free break these rules of mapping, but if you're going to do it, make sure you understand how to follow the rules first. You don't start out creating the wackiest music possible; you start by learning the basics. The most important part of mapping is to make sure you convey to the player the logic and the structure of the map, so that while a player might be initially confused the first time they see something, due to the style of the map, consecutive repetitions will be easier understood and played.

Btw, try playing your map with AR7 or something.
Topic Starter
jawns

Manysi wrote:

I can say good things. Seems like thats what you wanna hear.
There is something charming about your map that i cant describe. (Idk might be the music or just nostalgia.) And its pretty good compared to my first one.

You didnt give feedback that you understood what i told you. I guess i have to tell you once more: take the path that many others have already taken, or at least start on that. You wont regret it.

Though i feel the compulsion to help you with what i know.

"If you mention the distance spacing, you better have a damn good argument to why it should be changed, besides "It's too inconsistent!"".
00:03:725 (1,2) - 1/1 spacing -> 00:04:178 (3,4) - 1/2. From 3 to 4 is a bigger distance than 1 to 2. This is not inconsistent, its stupid. How am i supposed to tell the difference? You can say: but if you listen to the music... I know. The thing is you have to make it clear to the player what spacing you use. This is a common mistake what almost EVERY new mapper make.

00:04:027 (2,3,4) - is a group of beats with increasing pitch with nothing else happening, right? Then why did you space 4 much further away? This applies to your entire map. It didnt make sense, you had no reason to do this. You should group beats of the same kind and not make random spacing.
Maybe you wanted to make a similar to the previous at 00:04:933 (6,7,8) - because thats the same but only with decreasing pitch.

I could go on for several hours about the mistakes you made but i dont have time for that. As for timing, i would have choosen a song played to metronome to begin with. This kind of stuff is incredibly hard to pull off and i have to admit you did a great job.
In regards to following the same path as others, there's a few reasons, why I dislike the idea.
The first reason is just the way I work creatively. You can compare it to the way I write music: I'm completely self taught, and I am only now applying to get some education, and some proper knowledge. If working this way worked for composing, why shouldn't it work for beatmapping?

The second reason is, that I just like my own map that much. I kinda feel like "why should I do what other mappers tell me, when my map is better?". Because I really think it is. And as I mentioned before, I just want to make the map as enjoyable for me as possible, and then hope other people will like it as much as me. I don't think I'll ever want to make beatmaps in any other way.

In regards to the points about my map, thank you first of all, this is the first time anybody has ever criticized my map, and provided an explanation...

...but that still doesn't mean I'm not gonna defend it!

"If you mention the distance spacing, you better have a damn good argument to why it should be changed, besides "It's too inconsistent!"".
00:03:725 (1,2) - 1/1 spacing -> 00:04:178 (3,4) - 1/2. From 3 to 4 is a bigger distance than 1 to 2. This is not inconsistent, its stupid. How am i supposed to tell the difference? You can say: but if you listen to the music... I know. The thing is you have to make it clear to the player what spacing you use. This is a common mistake what almost EVERY new mapper make.

00:04:027 (2,3,4) - is a group of beats with increasing pitch with nothing else happening, right? Then why did you space 4 much further away? This applies to your entire map. It didnt make sense, you had no reason to do this. You should group beats of the same kind and not make random spacing.
Maybe you wanted to make a similar to the previous at 00:04:933 (6,7,8) - because thats the same but only with decreasing pitch.
I'm gonna address both points simultaneously: You kinda pointed it out yourself. I mapped the 1 as it's own note, and 2,3,4 as a separate part, where the distance increases as the pitch increases. Then same can be said about 5,6,7,8: 5 being on it's own, 6,7,8 decreasing in spacing as the pitch decreases. This might make more sense, if i make a nc on 2, so it's clear that 1 is on it's own, or 5, so it's clear that the two parts are basically opposites, but I feel like all the notes makes sense together as well, and too many nc's will just be more confusing
If you (or anybody) wants to discuss this particular map further, I'd recommend the map's thread, as that was not my intention with this thread

Edit: typo

-[Koinuri] wrote:

-[Koinuri] wrote:

Some of these can be broken on certain occasion if done right, but you can assume it's going to be bad for the most part.
The key term is "if done right" and "going to be bad for the most part". That song probably breaks rules correctly to make it interesting (I don't really feel like checking your timing). However, did you break them correctly? Can you defend your patterns with valid reasoning based on the song you're mapping to? Without your defense, it'll just wind up as "just another failed attempt to break a rule".
Well, I haven't had the chance to defend the map yet! I did suggest making a video defending every single note placement, yet I was advised against that. So here it goes:

In addition to Manysi's little mod, can you defend:
01:09:215 (5,6,7,8,9,10,1) - This jump is as difficult as the some of the jumps made in previous kiai. Are you saying that this section is as intense as the previous kiai? And are you saying that this section (00:29:698 (5,6,7,8,9,10)) isn't as intense? It might not be as intense, but since it's just after a calm bit, and followed by a calm bit, it seems more intense in comparison. It's is mapped slightly more intensely, to make it stand out more
02:21:693 (1,2,3) - What about this one? This is THE biggest jump in the entire map. Is this note so strong that it deserves this gigantic jump? Is it THE strongest note? You are correct that it is the biggest jump in the map, however since it's only one big jump and a few small ones, it's not the most difficult jump in the map. It was, as before, made to stand out
03:07:763 (6,7) - Second largest spacing. same question as point 2. Additionally, this is one of the very few place you used 1/4 sliders on. What makes this and other 1/4 (such as 03:58:920 (5)) so different that you used a technique you didn't use in the entire map? It is the ending of one section, just before the song changes quite dramatically. I often use larger spacing at the ending of these sections, to kinda finish them off with a bang. The sliders are because the notes stands out to me, while being quite staccato, which I emphasized this way.
03:26:312 (1,2,3,4,5) - The last note's spacing is 3 times as large as the other note. Is it that special? the previous notes follow the drums, while that note follows the flute, so naturally I separated them a bit. Also, I think this gives a feeling of forward momentum or action, similar to what I did here 01:22:343 (2,3,4) -
03:40:908 (1,2,3) - Why is this completely different from 03:42:502 (1,2,3,4)? I wanted to emphasize the drums the second time around, because it was the end of the section

Like Manysi said, I can probably point out stuff in your map all day and still not be done.

Yes, many mappers can interpret songs differently. That's where styles comes from. But majority of your spacing is an error, not creativity. It's plain impossible to "interpret" the notes the same way you claim to have interpreted with your mapping technique.
You should probably stop referring to things you subjectively disagree with as "errors", it kinda makes you look like an asshole...

CXu wrote:

If you want to break spacing rules, do it consistently. What is your reason for mapping 05:44:372 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - differently from 05:48:582 (1,2,3,4,5) - ? What part of the music made you think they were so different you had to change up how you mapped them?

Can you interpret the same thing several ways? Sure, but to a player that part sounds the same, there's no reason it shouldn't follow the same rhythm and general emphasis on notes. If you want to interpret it differently, do it in a different map or if it comes up in a different section of the song.

You're perfectly free break these rules of mapping, but if you're going to do it, make sure you understand how to follow the rules first. You don't start out creating the wackiest music possible; you start by learning the basics. The most important part of mapping is to make sure you convey to the player the logic and the structure of the map, so that while a player might be initially confused the first time they see something, due to the style of the map, consecutive repetitions will be easier understood and played.

Btw, try playing your map with AR7 or something.
The consistent inconsistencies is what I aim towards though. It makes the map more interesting in my opinion, and forces you to stay focused. Another effect of mapping similar parts differently in the same song is, that while you should map what the song emphasizes, you can emphasize parts of the song by mapping it. By emphasizing different parts at different times, you present more layers of the song to the player.

relevant song is relevant...
Manysi
By decreasing, this is what i meant
Each of them has to have lower spacing than the previous. Or at least tell the player that they do.

In mapping the song is already written... thats why this wont work. If you create something that doesnt exist in the music or you represent it differently, it will be bad. I know this well myself not only because i compose music too.

As others said: Learn the basics first. Try to think correctly and maybe you will accomplish something. Think over your reasons twice and have a little doubt in yourself at least. But most importantly, dont refuse the help from others.

There are dumb people like me who have to rely on someone's teaching to improve because they misunderstand/dont get things easily. Maybe you are one of us.

Edit: I am curious and would like to see a video how you defend yourself.
Natsu
did come, because the interesting title, but this map is really Common one, I did saw many like this from new mappers (my first map was like this), try to take advice from more experienced people. Slider shapes like 00:07:957 (4) - are super ugly and the fail blanket 00:07:957 (4,5) - make it looks worst, 00:39:395 (2,3,4) - imperfect triangles (obviously you did want to make it perfect, try Compose >create polygon circles). 03:07:763 (6,7,8) - 01:30:103 (7,8,9) - 02:32:611 (1,2,3,4) - spacing issues, while is fine to don't use spacing at extra/insane diff, it still need to make sense (this is something that you win with time and practice) , is fine if you map for graveyard, but this is far from having enough quality for rank or for being called a mapping style, because as I said before almost every first beatmap is like this.
Deva
I tried both maps you linked and id say they are anything but fun.
CXu

jawns wrote:

CXu wrote:

If you want to break spacing rules, do it consistently. What is your reason for mapping 05:44:372 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - differently from 05:48:582 (1,2,3,4,5) - ? What part of the music made you think they were so different you had to change up how you mapped them?

Can you interpret the same thing several ways? Sure, but to a player that part sounds the same, there's no reason it shouldn't follow the same rhythm and general emphasis on notes. If you want to interpret it differently, do it in a different map or if it comes up in a different section of the song.

You're perfectly free break these rules of mapping, but if you're going to do it, make sure you understand how to follow the rules first. You don't start out creating the wackiest music possible; you start by learning the basics. The most important part of mapping is to make sure you convey to the player the logic and the structure of the map, so that while a player might be initially confused the first time they see something, due to the style of the map, consecutive repetitions will be easier understood and played.

Btw, try playing your map with AR7 or something.
The consistent inconsistencies is what I aim towards though. It makes the map more interesting in my opinion, and forces you to stay focused. Another effect of mapping similar parts differently in the same song is, that while you should map what the song emphasizes, you can emphasize parts of the song by mapping it. By emphasizing different parts at different times, you present more layers of the song to the player.
If you're consistently inconsistent, then the inconsistency becomes consistency. A map is either consistent or inconsistent. Your map is inconsistent. There is no consistent inconsistency. While inconsistency isn't bad on its own, it almost always comes together with unpredictability, and that's what your map is mostly.
For example, 03:43:830 (4,5) - and 03:46:752 (4,5) - . They sound identical in the song. Why would you think there should be different spacing? For the sake of being inconsistent? In that case you're just going against the song. To emphasize some other layer? Which layer was emphasized in the first one and which one in the second? And why is that completely clear and understandable to a player playing the map for the very first time, probably also hearing the song for the first time? Did you do it to emphasize the slightly stronger beats in the 2nd section? Then why are you emphasizing that by decreasing the spacing rather than increasing it?

And if the thing above was done because of emphasis, then why 03:49:143 (1,2,3) - are these spaced more or less equally apart? To emphasize (3) by changing... Nothing? Or did you suddenly change layer again, and is no longer following the flute but something else? Why would any player think you were doing that? If you're no longer following the flute, then how come you switch back to it in the same combo right afterwards 03:50:724 (5,6,7,8,9,10) - ? Were players supposed to know?

Furthermore, 03:51:247 (1) - Why are these then the same speed as 03:49:143 (1) - ? They're decreasing in pitch right? Or wait, maybe you weren't following the flute here. I don't actually know what you're trying to follow. Maybe it's that cymbal thing? 03:52:818 (5,6,7) - But the suddenly this seems to follow the drums. Or is it trying to follow the flute again? And 03:53:341 (1,2,3) - why is the spacing so close here anyway? Seems to try following the decrease in pitch for these sections, right? Then why didn't you do the same for 03:51:247 - , and why didn't you make the sliders decrease in speed together with the spacing? Was there anything more important to follow instead at 03:51:247 - that I'm unaware of? 03:54:669 (4) - And how come this is slightly closer to (3) than 03:53:872 (2) - is to (1,3)? Maybe you should've emphasized the guitar at 03:54:138 (3) - as well?

Leaving aside flow for 03:56:263 (5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12) - or the other patterns for that matter, what are you trying to emphasize with 03:57:459 (13) - ? There's nothing in the music here. Are you trying to emphasize the nothingness by making a big jump? It's certainly something one could do. Or maybe there's something else here that I don't understand.

Note that this isn't even 15 seconds of your map.

See, there's a lot of things I could come up with to "justify" everything you're doing, or even come up with a bunch of other reasons to map something differently. Where to be consistent, where to be inconsistent. You're just arbitrarily doing one or the other. A map is supposed to be played, and if you can't make the players understand what your map is trying to do, it's not going to get very far.

This map makes sense to you because you know beforehand what layer each section of your map is following. This isn't the case for every other player.

But eh, it seems like you've convinced yourself that your map is perfect, this is a legitimate mapping style and that you know what you're doing, so you go do you.
Topic Starter
jawns

Manysi wrote:

By decreasing, this is what i meant
Each of them has to have lower spacing than the previous. Or at least tell the player that they do.

In mapping the song is already written... thats why this wont work. If you create something that doesnt exist in the music or you represent it differently, it will be bad. I know this well myself not only because i compose music too.

As others said: Learn the basics first. Try to think correctly and maybe you will accomplish something. Think over your reasons twice and have a little doubt in yourself at least. But most importantly, dont refuse the help from others.

There are dumb people like me who have to rely on someone's teaching to improve because they misunderstand/dont get things easily. Maybe you are one of us.

Edit: I am curious and would like to see a video how you defend yourself.
I don't understand why that is a lot different than what I did, or why it would be better. Also, it doesn't "mirror" the part before as well.

I don't think, that it's a question about not understanding for the most part though, but rather just me disagreeing.

Natsu wrote:

did come, because the interesting title, but this map is really Common one, I did saw many like this from new mappers (my first map was like this), try to take advice from more experienced people. Slider shapes like 00:07:957 (4) - are super ugly and the fail blanket 00:07:957 (4,5) - make it looks worst, 00:39:395 (2,3,4) - imperfect triangles (obviously you did want to make it perfect, try Compose >create polygon circles). 03:07:763 (6,7,8) - 01:30:103 (7,8,9) - 02:32:611 (1,2,3,4) - spacing issues, while is fine to don't use spacing at extra/insane diff, it still need to make sense (this is something that you win with time and practice) , is fine if you map for graveyard, but this is far from having enough quality for rank or for being called a mapping style, because as I said before almost every first beatmap is like this.
I'd probably rephrase it as a mapping mentality rather than a mapping style tbh. I realize that "punk mapping" is more about the mentality you go into mapping with, rather than the actual placement of the notes.

In regards to your points about my map:

Slider shapes like 00:07:957 (4) - are super ugly and the fail blanket 00:07:957 (4,5) - make it looks worst
why is this a problem?

00:39:395 (2,3,4) - imperfect triangles (obviously you did want to make it perfect)
what if i didn't?

03:07:763 (6,7,8) - 01:30:103 (7,8,9) - 02:32:611 (1,2,3,4) - spacing issues, while is fine to don't use spacing at extra/insane diff, it still need to make sense
This is honestly not very helpful advice. I have explained why similar parts does make sense (even think I talked about one of the ones you mentioned). If you're gonna say something is an issue or doesn't make sense, at least give a reason why

HK_ wrote:

I tried both maps you linked and id say they are anything but fun.
I don't give a shit

CXu wrote:

jawns wrote:

The consistent inconsistencies is what I aim towards though. It makes the map more interesting in my opinion, and forces you to stay focused. Another effect of mapping similar parts differently in the same song is, that while you should map what the song emphasizes, you can emphasize parts of the song by mapping it. By emphasizing different parts at different times, you present more layers of the song to the player.
If you're consistently inconsistent, then the inconsistency becomes consistency. A map is either consistent or inconsistent. Your map is inconsistent. There is no consistent inconsistency. While inconsistency isn't bad on its own, it almost always comes together with unpredictability, and that's what your map is mostly.
For example, 03:43:830 (4,5) - and 03:46:752 (4,5) - . They sound identical in the song. Why would you think there should be different spacing? For the sake of being inconsistent? In that case you're just going against the song. To emphasize some other layer? Which layer was emphasized in the first one and which one in the second? And why is that completely clear and understandable to a player playing the map for the very first time, probably also hearing the song for the first time? Did you do it to emphasize the slightly stronger beats in the 2nd section? Then why are you emphasizing that by decreasing the spacing rather than increasing it?

And if the thing above was done because of emphasis, then why 03:49:143 (1,2,3) - are these spaced more or less equally apart? To emphasize (3) by changing... Nothing? Or did you suddenly change layer again, and is no longer following the flute but something else? Why would any player think you were doing that? If you're no longer following the flute, then how come you switch back to it in the same combo right afterwards 03:50:724 (5,6,7,8,9,10) - ? Were players supposed to know?

Furthermore, 03:51:247 (1) - Why are these then the same speed as 03:49:143 (1) - ? They're decreasing in pitch right? Or wait, maybe you weren't following the flute here. I don't actually know what you're trying to follow. Maybe it's that cymbal thing? 03:52:818 (5,6,7) - But the suddenly this seems to follow the drums. Or is it trying to follow the flute again? And 03:53:341 (1,2,3) - why is the spacing so close here anyway? Seems to try following the decrease in pitch for these sections, right? Then why didn't you do the same for 03:51:247 - , and why didn't you make the sliders decrease in speed together with the spacing? Was there anything more important to follow instead at 03:51:247 - that I'm unaware of? 03:54:669 (4) - And how come this is slightly closer to (3) than 03:53:872 (2) - is to (1,3)? Maybe you should've emphasized the guitar at 03:54:138 (3) - as well?

Leaving aside flow for 03:56:263 (5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12) - or the other patterns for that matter, what are you trying to emphasize with 03:57:459 (13) - ? There's nothing in the music here. Are you trying to emphasize the nothingness by making a big jump? It's certainly something one could do. Or maybe there's something else here that I don't understand.

Note that this isn't even 15 seconds of your map.

See, there's a lot of things I could come up with to "justify" everything you're doing, or even come up with a bunch of other reasons to map something differently. Where to be consistent, where to be inconsistent. You're just arbitrarily doing one or the other. A map is supposed to be played, and if you can't make the players understand what your map is trying to do, it's not going to get very far.

This map makes sense to you because you know beforehand what layer each section of your map is following. This isn't the case for every other player.

But eh, it seems like you've convinced yourself that your map is perfect, this is a legitimate mapping style and that you know what you're doing, so you go do you.
First of, I'll mention a thing you wrote:
it almost always comes together with unpredictability, and that's what your map is mostly.
Exactly! Unpredictability is what I am aiming towards; something that follows the music, yet forces you to read the map, and be prepared for anything.

This map makes sense to you because you know beforehand what layer each section of your map is following. This isn't the case for every other player.
I've said this multiple times now, but i might as well repeat it: I made this map for myself. I liked it, so I shared it. You can give me advice, if you explain it, and I might agree or disagree.
And most importantly this thread is not about this map! But at least I am a little bit happy, that I've got my initial concern confirmed to some degree...
Okoratu
it's about the mapping style, hence it IS about your map.

You seem to reject everyone who offers to help you so you're most likely a hopeless case.
CXu
This thread is about you thinking you know what you're doing when you clearly don't, and people telling you what you're doing wrong and you refusing to listen to them, thinking for some reason that you somehow found this "new" type of mapping and that we're just being difficult and can't see your side of the argument. We can, because we've ALL been there at one point. The only difference is that we're not being stubborn and closed-minded about it.

And no, unpredictability isn't what you're aiming towards, if it were, it would be impossible to justify anything, other than saying "well it's unpredictable". If you, as you claim, can justify the placement of every note in your map, then being unpredictable can't be what you were trying to be, because the justification would be what makes it predictable.

Also thanks for ignoring 90% of my post and only quoting the few lines that you had an answer to.
Initial concern? What concern, that we're not open to new innovative ways of mapping? Because we are, we're just not open to stupid mapping that's been done by almost every mapper in existence at one point in their mapping career.

And yes, I'm using a harsher tone. If you're going to ignore almost everything I actually say, then I don't have any reason to try sounding super nice either.
Manysi
How can you not see the difference? Spacing is getting lower and lower instead of getting lower rapidly. It has to be smooth yknow. (sry but i cant be cleaner about this)

Anyways, further discussion is pointless since you like going against a wall.like... a... punk??
Just take my life lesson from my previous posts and live your life happily with it.
Endaris
It's always the same though, if you're playing stupid you get tons of serious responses and if you're making (supposedly) smart statements none's going to answer at all.
(see Reditum's thread on slow song choices)
Kenan
This is clearly going nowhere, just lock the topic and be done with this.
Manysi

Endaris wrote:

It's always the same though, if you're playing stupid you get tons of serious responses and if you're making (supposedly) smart statements none's going to answer at all.
(see Reditum's thread on slow song choices)
From my part, i have no idea how to map melodic songs and thats why i have nothing to offer for the discussion. I dont think there is anything wrong with the current state of things though. Its a rhythm game afterall.
Flanster
jawns, can you please not make another post to reply to each person, just put it all in one.
Topic Starter
jawns
I fucking give up. I tried to explain. I tried to be as clear as possible about my intentions. I tried to get a discussion going about mapping in general, and at one point I succeeded. When the discussion moved to my map in particular, I tried to explain why I made the decisions I made, and I tried to explain that I made the map to my own liking and I don't give a fuck if you disagree.
I accepted criticism, however I expected people to accept that I didn't have to agree. They didn't.

I'm tired of being called a bad mapper. Or people telling me I don't know what I'm doing. I can't force you to like my map. You can't force me to dislike it either. I didn't make the map for you to enjoy, so why would I care?

Thanks to anyone who actually helped the discussion. The ones who actually gave some useful insight into mapping.

But to the ones who insulted me and my map, to the ones who couldn't accept that I didn't agree with their criticisms: Go fuck yourselves

You can keep mapping like you've always done, and you can keep telling me I'm doing it wrong...

"Flowers are red, and green leaves are green
There's no need to see flowers any other way
Than the way they always have been seen"

Edit: this thread can be locked. I've got nothing more to say. And clearly, people don't have anything useful to say anymore either
Please sign in to reply.

New reply