penoreri - Preserved Valkyria

Total Posts
show more
Foxy Grandpa

GoldenWolf wrote:

00:19:447 (1,2,3,4) - How come there are only whistles on 1 and 4 when all four objects are the same strength in piano? If you don't want to hit whistles on all four, then rhythmically, you can whistle on 1 and 3 and that would make more sense than whistling 1 and 4. Also, because there are still beats on reds, I believe these would fit better as sliders (perhaps low SV) just so it can still hit the rhythms. Low SV sliders might help bring good spacing emphasis since they'll be treated more or less as held circles. ^see just above Except those arent high low low high, these are all high pitch sounds that should be complimented with a whistle. While I see where you're coming from, a pattern like that doesn't work in this case because having whistles emphasizing the strong beats leading into a buildup should be necessary imo

00:20:609 (7,8,9,10,11,12,13) - Missing whistles on this half? I get that the volume is decreasing but you can add green lines to change the volumes with the whistles (every circle after 7 can go down in 5% for example). That would be a much stronger approach than ignoring half of the piano hitsounds. Not missing any nope, also reducing the volume to reduce hitsounds additions is really obnoxious while playing especially when feedback is needed like here Don't see how reducing the volume of this stream would be obnoxious at all when the sounds its being mapped to decrease in volume too. There's still going to be feedback, but now you can include all the proper whistles while complimenting the music with the decrease in volume rather than simply ignoring half of them.

00:43:447 (1,2,3,4) - I never understood this and why there's so many snaps and rhythms being ignored here. The music is reaching a climax but you let go too early with these 1/8 drums that aren't actually snapped to 1/8 beats, it seems this was placed purely to add some sort of convoluted sense of contrast that is incredibly unfitting to what's happening in the song. It would be far more beneficial to the song to use the snaps the music provided (either 1/3s for piano or 1/4s for drums) and use some sliders or streams to help build the climax with the music instead of falling short with these incorrectly snapped 1/8 sliders. Because it's already hard enough to read/interpret as it is, I don't need to map every single sound you can hear to make sense of what is happening. If you want to call it some fancy words I guess we can go for Selective Emphasis, as it matters more to map what represents that section rather than mapping everything you hear, there is a fine line to not be crossed here in fear of falling into the realm of absurdity. Players at this level would be able to interpret this "complex" rhythm (if you could even call it that) easily. This is a lame excuse and the 1/8's aren't fitting to the song in any sense, if you're not going to change the rhythm in this section atleast silence the sliderends... They're completely unfitting and take away from the drums in the background you do want to emphasize

01:01:420 (1) - Missing Finish hitsound on an obvious crash it is a cymbal but they both feel too weak to warrant a finish especially when the patterning doesn't support it (and it doesn't bcs it's following the melody, not the drums)This is one of the highest points in the entire song??? Not having a finish here is just absurd, and having an entire section that spams finishes like 01:27:602 - where it barley comes close to matching the intensity is just absurd.
01:03:602 (3) - ^

01:26:102 (3) - Hitsound error Additive hitsounding Lol as if, you use the excuse that there isnt a strong enough sound for a finish on 01:01:420 (1) - but you throw in a random drum finish here?

01:26:239 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,1,2) - Clap spamming isn't suggested by the music here... I can understand the pattern as a means to show rising intensity but the music still holds claps on 2s and 4s. I don't know, this seems like a poor decision because it doesn't help follow what the song is suggesting. Continuing on, it might be wise to whistle 01:27:193 (1,2,3) - since there are strong pianos attached to them. You even have them grouped under their own combo so it makes sense to apply whistles here. I think I've discussed this part more than enough already, if you haven't read about it yet I'd encourage you to do so. Tl;dr though; additive hitsounding While i agree that 01:26:784 (5,7) - sound fine with added claps, 01:26:511 (3) - does not. If you take away the clap sound on 3 it would give a better build up feel to the jump section that follows this instead of how it is now, which makes it feel like random snare drum spam.

01:27:602 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - Clap spamming might be suggested here, since the music is more pronounced and so are the instruments, but Finish spamming is a bit over the top lol (since this just suggests clap spamming as part of the music) see above ^ Except in this case the additive hitsounding is just annoying and unneeded, finishes are generally used for emphasizing strong individual moments in the music and as it is now its incredibly annoying to have 80% volume finishes being spammed for a section.

01:53:784 (1) - Obvious Finish is missed same reason as before, not following the drums but the melody and patterning (which follows the melody) doesn't support a finish here Same counter point as above for this part, literally the largest climax in the song and you're just using inconsistent excuses at this point.

I have some concerns about the whistle placement in the very start as well

  • Your whistle placement from 00:02:028 - to 00:07:834 - feels entirely random, half of the time you're missing very important sounds and putting whistle on the off beats

  1. 00:02:028 (2,3,4,5,6) - What logic is behind the whistle being on an offbeat blue tick and not on any of the white tick sounds, it makes no sense and just sounds bad. Especially because you don't have a whistle sound on literally the first important piano sound but have one on an off tick rhythm
  2. 00:03:770 (1,2) - Same point as above with off tick whistle sounds
  3. 00:05:222 (3,4) - Swap whistle placements here, the important sound is on 00:05:318 - and not the blue tick before it
  4. 00:06:092 (1) - I see no reason for there to be a missing whistle here at all

I hope you take my points into actual consideration instead of brushing them off to avoid another dq.
it's getting ridiculous
So, at this point I'm turning into a parrot, and I don't like this.

Instead of replying to bullet points, I'll be more direct and general; I have checked the hitsounding on my diff many, many times now. Pointing out the same things with the same arguments everytime gets a little bit old, especially when I made it clear that I do know and undertsand why people don't necessarily agree with these points, but also that I am aware and can confirm that the hitsounding is intentionnal. I don't feel like my reasoning is inconsistent nor weak. It isn't like I don't understand why people have concerns either, but those are the choices I made while making the map and reading/applying/replying to mods.

I am still surprised the hitsounding is getting *that* much attention, even more so when it doesn't really differ from how I usually hitsound logic-wise. I have explained myself on these points quite a few times already. The main thing to retain I guess would be that I didn't copycat the song 1:1 for the hitsounding, but rather emphasized the elements I felt stand out with selective/additive hitsounding. Wether you agree or not is fine by me, it's not like I expect everyone to just accept it, but I made it clear already that I do no want nor intent to change everything to please other people if it doesn't please me first. In the end, it is how I perceive the song, and how I felt like representing it. There are 2 other diffs doing what people seem to want already, I didn't feel like doing a 3rd, but rather went for something a bit different that felt closer to my own perception of it.

It really feels like being forced others' opinions and views on my map at this point which I dislike quite a bit. As far as I know, there isn't anything unrankable, and what gets mentionned now feels subjective enough I don't want to change these points if they don't please me aswell.

I also want to stress that I don't mind receiving mods, I don't mind the map to be DQ'd either, nor does Alheak seem to care much either, I never really cared and I do know and understand the Qualified buffer is there to improve a map which I happily agree to do if it does actually feel like I'd be improving the map doing so, and/or if they bring something new. The mods I got so far were constructive, and I do appreciate that, but also were the same repeated points, which at this point gets a bit old to be told and repeated again and again as to why I did or did not want to change things.

I think that will be about that for my rant. I hope I made my point clear by now! If I have to repeat any more of this, I'll make you step on lego barefoot.
Hello, I'll take this map down for now. The concerns brought forth by fdsfd and FoxyGrandpa seem relevant based on how long the mods are, and therefore should be considered. Reading the thread, it seems the mappers involved have a good justification for their decisions too, but it's best that we discuss these things without the pressure of time.

Additionally, here are some extra things I'd like to point out:
  1. (Insert random issue here).


Made it easier for the QATs involved. Juts copy/paste that and change the last part, you're welcome ^^.

this is getting stupid
The concerns with the other difficulties still stand
I looked through fdsfd's mod and I literally agree with nothing he mentioned, stop overmodding difficulties because that's how you ruin actual good stuff
I have a concern.
Foxy Grandpa
GW and i talked a bit, and after discussing stuff more things are fine as is, and which made me realize that almost all of the things i wrote are straight up retarded

I want to apologize to alheak for trying to start completely unneeded issues with the map, and ranking this even further, was completely unneeded and in the end i was retarded

hopefully there won't be more drama :ablobmaracas:

Stjpa wrote:

I looked through fdsfd's mod and I literally agree with nothing he mentioned, stop overmodding difficulties because that's how you ruin actual good stuff

analysis: you're dumb
Nao Tomori
Chewy stop plz its getting lame

Linada wrote:

u might need a good read of this
like that changes anything lmao

fdsfd wrote:

Linada wrote:

u might need a good read of this
like that changes anything lmao
Yes, it will teach you something that your parents might not have taught you. :)

Pachiru wrote:

Yes, it will teach you something that your parents might not have taught you. :)

Looking past the drama, I too have some things to say about the highest difficulty on this set.


  1. 00:01:254 (1,1) - Excellent use of a slow slider onto a circle! It really emphasizes the head in a unique way due to the shift in velocity from the slider to the head!
  2. 00:10:931 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12) - I'm a really big fan of patterns like this. Wonderful use of 3-note groupings to follow the 1/3 rhythms in the back! And they are scaling downward in spacing too, which help to convey the pitch change!
  3. 00:23:318 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,1,2,3,4,1) - Excellent rhythm choices that really showcase the shifting polarity in the song here!.
  4. 00:28:867 (1,2,3,4,5) - This is actually so fun to land.
  5. 00:52:693 (1,2,3) - Excellent use of triangles here for those 3 note groupings like what you did earlier!
  6. 00:56:511 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1) - Well designed accelerating stream.
  7. 01:01:420 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - I really love what you did here with the triangles. They get bigger and smaller depending on the pitch. Man, you really thought these patterns through.
  8. 01:05:239 (1,2,1) - This pacing change is really nicely done. And you have the sliders set up so its easy to catch the slider velocity shift too!
  9. 01:10:148 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - These stacks actually make so much sense with the music since its the same note repeated over and over again. Nice
  10. 01:21:057 (1,2,3) - Very unique spacing here of 3, but it works wonderfully with what you're trying to emphasize, and the low spacing and angle shift is really nice too in creating an interesting flow.
  11. 01:24:193 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3) - Excellent flows here!
  12. 01:26:239 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,1) - Nicely designed cross pattern here!
  13. 01:33:057 (1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,6) - Really like what you did here with the spacing correlation with pitch again!
  14. 01:41:511 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - You know I love my triangles <3
  15. 01:49:420 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - Oh, this rhythm is so fun to play, and it flows so well here!
  16. 01:51:602 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - ^Same!
  17. 01:53:784 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - These triangles again!! <3


Sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused... Good work on this map, and I hope to see this in the ranked section soon!
Nao Tomori
- _ -

Naotoshi wrote:

- _ -
Topic Starter
Thank you fdsfd and Monstrata for your mods! I'm gonna reply to fdsfd's the best I can, I hope you'll find my explanations helpful.

General: Strongly consider moving the offset by about +20 on the 00:48:071 - since the beats seem to be happening in the map earlier than in the song. I've noticed like everywhere if i put it on 25% speed. I cannot do this because this is the exact same mp3 used in the current two ranked mania sets.

The bg has 5199 kb/s which is a lot, more than the audio lol. Dunno but transform it into jpg somehow, it will take a lot less space.It's a bit unnecessary because the folder size is still reasonable. I like the really high quality BGs ;p

Entrance to Valhalla

I kinda stand by Mir for this, except I think you don't need to sacrifice the symmetry concept, you'll just need to put in a bit more effort and possibly limit your design so that the map will be more consistent in terms of spacing. So to put it out again, I think that your overall spacing is raised too much therefore musical parts that need emphasis lack it on comparison to others, while on the other hand, the forced symmetry made certain patterns inconsistent when it comes to difficulty and emphasis. So firstly I'd like to discuss the emphasis idea implemented about the overall spacing, while on the second part i'll discuss how i think you can make stuff more consistent while preserving the symmetry etc. As I said to Mir, the only reason this would be something of discussion is how you treat spacing versus emphasis. In the case for my beatmap, the difficulty threshold is intentionally raised and this song has very little room to improve difficulty outside of spacing, therefore, concrete patterns are used at the risk of having 'awkward playability' to achieve my concept of symmetry, which of course regards to my high spacing. The spacing emphasis we're so used to seeing is not optimally captured because it wasn't intended to be captured in such modern ways. You will have one pattern on one half, and then play another pattern on the other half. The transition from patterns can be argued for both sides, I chose a side that's not seen in modern era. In addition, this song is a KAC Contest Song Winner and was one of the most difficult charts in SDVX and I like to reflect the difficulty this song presented in SDVX but for osu. It's what I do with all my other Contest Song Winners (iLLness LiLin, Lachryma, Celestial stinger, etc).

00:54:071 (1,2,1,2) - So in this section you gave larger emphasis to 00:48:889 (1) - these NCed notes that have this loud synth which other notes do not, but in the 1-2 ones, the (2) which doesn't have any important synth in this pattern particularly i initially linked is as emphasized as (1)? Why don't you keep that consistent with something like this. You will keep the symmetry idea while also make the (1)'s which sound stronger emphasized as you do often(dont mind the bg, i cant evaluate your map on bright bg xd). You can look at the top right and see where the objective spacing is in terms of pixel relation. The thing you linked me at 54s has more spacing than what was linked at 48s, and there is a clear finish on the former which is why I have the larger spacing. The two triangles from before don't have anything interesting as they are composed in 1-2-3 but the latter is composed in 1-2 1-2 so, I only reflect that. Your suggestion for keeping symmetry seems okay too, reasonable suggestion. I dislike it because it interferes with the former triangles. I wanted the spacing to be fill in the upper half while keeping a design since I already had objects in the bottom half. It's something I like to do in all my maps.
00:55:707 (1,2,3,4) - Since this is a lot more intense with those loud af sounds I think you should make it harder and different than the previous patterning since its not the same? How about something like this I don't see any good in blending in such different sounds with same kind of patterning, it deserves special emphasis tbh. I thought about something like this too, the reason I didn't like it is because of the visual aspect yet again. There are objects in the bottom, then objects near the top, so I wanted to finish the section with objects in the center while keeping to "some" sort of symmetry. The triangle makes sense to me because the distance spacing is larger in whole than the rest of my previous patterns. I used flow change here because of the finishes. Your suggestion is reasonable too, I prefer my way because it achieves more of my vision.
01:03:548 - Not related, but I think you should map this, its quite audible and i think that the stream should start on the red tick. You're right here, I added more to the stream.
01:25:980 (1,2,2,3) - These are particularly overspaced, especially that slider which is not even a synth. By reducing the spacing similar to the picture, 01:27:343 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,1) - this pattern which truly sounds much stronger will get the emphasis it deserves. Currently their jumps are actually similar to the distance of the ones I was talking. I've read your reply on Mir's point but having actual mechanical impact with spacing as differentiation is felt much more strongly than simple placement. Also density is not really something that emphasizes this pattern because in the map your note density is pretty high so it won't truly stand out in comparison to the rest. The repeating pattern is quite obviously distinguishable from the rest because it, repeats (and stacks)... The spacing on previous objects is at 2.60 while the spacing on the later repeating pattern goes in and out of 2.90 because it moves a bit up and down. I don't disagree that reducing spacing can help 'emphasize' the later pattern but the later pattern is already quite obvious in itself that it's different and the pattern itself is enough to be 'emphasizing' because of how different or impactful and especially how active it plays compared to the circles I placed before which was just more or less moving around the map, not so rigid with snapping and intense 1/2 clicking. I also can't agree with your suggestion because I find it a bit unnecessary to apply for the reasons I stated above. If anything, I think this is nitpicky so I stand neutral on it, leaning more towards disagree for my reasons.
01:42:071 (1,2,1,2) - Identical concern as I've mentioned earlier to 1-2 patterning. The (2)'s are quite weaker than (1)'s yet they have similar or even higher emphasis in spacing (01:42:071 (1) - clicking on this you can see 2.7x previous and 3.6x next). By doing something like this you will make the emphasis on (1) which is a strong synth consistent to 01:42:616 (1,3,5) - for example where you give emphasis to synth, preserve the symmetrical structure, and keep overall intensity of the jumps high. This kind of suggestion goes to all 1-2 jumps in the section, your choice how you build them.
Also regarding the 1-2, in this section imo they should be noticeably less emphasized than in 01:49:161 - this section where the sounds are the same but the intensity of the section scaled overall, which means that they should be scaled appropriately to the new similar, but more intense section. Your suggestion makes good sense here. I did try to work with this idea, but I couldn't find a way to keep my visual aesthetics this way because I try to avoid overlaps with previous existing objects and make use for further objects. I did however fix some of my gradual spacing idea and fixed some back and forth patterns to be consistent with my intentions. Had to adjust some directions but I think it's a little bit better now~
01:52:980 (1,2,1,2) - Even though these sounds are intenser than 01:50:798 (1,2,1,2) - the large spacing difference won't compensate for the patterning. You should imo make this more emphasized than that in spacing at least. My previous suggestion of 1-2 patterning goes to here too also tbh. I mean, you could look at it in two ways: the pitch is higher so make the spacing higher. or: the pitch is different so that pattern is treated differently. The spacing isn't the only thing to look at here because you should factor in how a player a plays this versus the back and forth stack from before. One is simpler than the other, one is less active than the other. The pitch rises and the gameplay is more 'exciting' whereas the previous has something that's flatter as it is with the music. What I like about my current patterns is that they can flow visually well into one another while keeping to my symmetrical idea. But the interpretation is quite open and I think it comes down to what you prefer more, many people will say different.

Now regarding the symmetry individual emphasis inconsistencies:

00:50:116 (2,1) - The (1) which is the downbeat is less emphasized than 00:51:071 (1) - because of spacing. I know I know patterning etc, but look, there's no harm in making it emphasized by spacing too. An option I found to be quite ideal was making the previous pattern like this, making the circle on the left being far away from the (1) therefore making the jump as about large as 00:50:934 (3,1) -. You can do it in a similar way here . In this pattern consider bringing 00:52:434 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - closer to the middle to make it easier, I mean, 00:53:116 (3,1) - just look at this jump on this relatively calm section, it's just a regular beat but this is 4.30x compared to a downbeat 00:52:434 (1) - with a finish. I'm glad you can understand my point of view. Your suggestion doesn't fit me will, and there are many ways to try and map this as shown in other difficulties. As I state before this map is conceptual so, modern mapping techniques will be quite loose and it's due to the symmetry. Because you can understand my reasoning, I don't want to expand too far in it. Gradually getting spaced is the idea while pertaining to symmetry and not everything can be as "optimally emphasized" as you wish because of symmetry. My idea with triangles and rotations etc.
00:54:616 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - I believe you should put in a little more effort here to make (1)'s emphasized like you do usually, this is just a large inconsistency without any particular reason. Simply just copy paste the right triangle and invert it idk, the angle compensates for the lack of spacing to the nced note. Okay, I fixed this. I think I had a reasoning for playability but the inconsistency is much worse, so I did fixed the circles there.
01:49:844 (3,1) - This is one of the spots in which it will take you effort to arrange the patterns so that it gets spacing emphasis like most (1)'s do. idk? I do this sort of thing quite consistently as shown here 01:52:025 (3,1) - and 01:52:844 (3,1) - so,
it would be a bit jarring to fix one and not the others but they're all kept to being consistent with sharing the patterns together. The only (1)s that get obvious emphasis are the (1)s that go back and forth stack on each other. While your suggestion isn't bad, I don't see it being a huge necessity. There are a lot of ideas that work here don't get me wrong.

Thank you for your suggestion MaridiuS. Thank you for spending the time to write this all out and provide visual examples of your sentiments as it makes it easier for me to see what you mean. While I cannot agree to fix on a lot of what you've suggested, I hope my reasonings make sense to you. I only applied what I saw fitting and beneficial to my map. This took me a while to evaluate so please don't be offend if my response came off negative. :)
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply