I agreeSophia wrote:
04:00:183 (1) - lol what
Some parts of the map are okay, but others (specially this one) feel disgusting to play, and look lazy as heck.
This slider didn't make me feel like I was into the song, it felt like not playing a map and listening to some good vocals that could have been mapped but weren't.
"Lazy" is the only word I can use to describe this slider.
forum
FELT - After rain
posted
Total Posts
215
No one informed me that there was progress being made on the map (all of this happened in 3 days without once messaging me) and yes, I still have issues with this map. I was under the impression I have a right to veto a map for what I believe to be fundamental flaws but I guess not? I supplied my reasons and sure, the mapper defended their points but I still heavily disagree with the overall design on this map, and nothing minor could be changed to fix the overarching flaws within this map. I will be contacting Loctav because this is clearly a breach of the BNG Rules.
EDIT: It appears I was contacted once 16 days ago by Okorin via a @highlight on discord saying that my bubble pop would be void if I didn't respond to the mapper's response. (which note, I did discuss via ingame chat with him.) At the time I was very busy with academics and just said "I'll probably give up then" since I didn't want to waste my time debating with a mapper who would inevitable be unable to meet a common ground with me (the map is fundamentally flawed in my eyes and therefore I believe it shouldn't be ranked).
As far as I know this has not happened before, so this is something that will need to be addressed.
EDIT: It appears I was contacted once 16 days ago by Okorin via a @highlight on discord saying that my bubble pop would be void if I didn't respond to the mapper's response. (which note, I did discuss via ingame chat with him.) At the time I was very busy with academics and just said "I'll probably give up then" since I didn't want to waste my time debating with a mapper who would inevitable be unable to meet a common ground with me (the map is fundamentally flawed in my eyes and therefore I believe it shouldn't be ranked).
As far as I know this has not happened before, so this is something that will need to be addressed.
Monstrata wrote:
A lot of progress was made between bubble-pop and qualification. From what I gathered, you were asked for your opinion and to recheck the map multiple times, but failed to do so for whatever reason. What you veto'ed on may well have been addressed and resolved, but either way, you didn't contribute any further to the discussion after veto'ing despite the discussion and changes that were made after your post, so your veto became invalidated. The decision was made by a member of a QAT.
its not the mappers responsibility to hold your veto.Xexxar wrote:
No one informed me that there was progress being made on the map and yes, I still have issues with this map. I was under the impression I have a right to veto a map for what I believe to be fundamental flaws but I guess not? I supplied my reasons and sure, the mapper defended their points but I still heavily disagree with the overall design on this map, and nothing minor could be changed to fix the overarching flaws within this map. I will be contacting Loctav because this is clearly a breach of the BNG Rules.
edgy trash talk
plus if you are modding just to change someones aesthetics I think you clearly don't have a good handle on what makes a map good but hey that's just my opinion
A lot of progress was made between bubble-pop and qualification. From what I gathered, you were asked for your opinion and to recheck the map multiple times, but failed to do so for whatever reason. What you veto'ed on may well have been addressed and resolved, but either way, you didn't contribute any further to the discussion after veto'ing despite the discussion and changes that were made after your post, so your veto became invalidated. The decision was made by a member of a QAT .
.ah yes a qat, the voice of godMonstrata wrote:
The decision was made by a member of a QAT
its not like qat is in charge of bns is it.Xexxar wrote:
ah yes a qat, the voice of godMonstrata wrote:
The decision was made by a member of a QAT
Since I'll remake it clear:
Issues with this map:
[Rhythms]
As already mentioned in my previous mod, there is no logical structure to beat placement at the beginning of the song. we have basically the same rhythm every measure but you effectively randomly change your rhythms with no structure or purpose.
04:00:183 (1) - I didn't even mention this last time but, this isn't mapping to the song... it's just lazy mapping and is not acceptable.
[Aesthetics]
Just because you consistency use aesthetics that aren't consistent does not mean your map is acceptable. I've already stated that I do not find this acceptable and there is clearly no way for us to come to an agreement on this without a complete remap.
Again, my overarching reasons for why I believe this map to be flawed are still visible and have not been addressed:
Issues with this map:
[Rhythms]
As already mentioned in my previous mod, there is no logical structure to beat placement at the beginning of the song. we have basically the same rhythm every measure but you effectively randomly change your rhythms with no structure or purpose.
04:00:183 (1) - I didn't even mention this last time but, this isn't mapping to the song... it's just lazy mapping and is not acceptable.
[Aesthetics]
Just because you consistency use aesthetics that aren't consistent does not mean your map is acceptable. I've already stated that I do not find this acceptable and there is clearly no way for us to come to an agreement on this without a complete remap.
Again, my overarching reasons for why I believe this map to be flawed are still visible and have not been addressed:
I HEAVILY disagree with the design of this map, this is not something I believe to be suitable for ranking and and making it 100% clear that I am and still have been VETOing this map with my bubble pop.Xexxar wrote:
[Overall]
- I can continue but overall I believe this map is fundamentally flawed. Specifically designing your mapset to literally be ugly with awkward overlaps and blatantly inconsistent patterning and design is questionable and not something fit for the ranked section of osu! You are going to claim that these overlaps are critical to the design and play style of your map, however I have a hard time believe that poorly constructed and inconsistent amounts of overlaps and slightly inconsistent distance between notes visually adds any difference in the play of your map.
- Usage of inconsistent rhythms and awkward 1/3rd rhythms that are nearly impossible to sight read due to your spacing being everywhere, the player has no reason to expect that 01:49:441 (1,2,3) - is 1/3rd when its patterning is literally designed to show the opposite. 01:56:298 (1,2,3,1) - difficult to read as you have 01:56:941 (2,3) - immediately after which is the same spacing as 01:58:655 (7,8) - and 01:56:584 (3,1) - .
- There doesn't seem to be reason for what is a slider and what isn't. During the kiai you don't really follow anything in particular, and objects that are sliders in one section change to circles in the next. 01:58:870 (8) - vs 01:48:584 (6) - for example. The map seems to be everywhere and doesn't have any real structure behind it.
- 01:56:298 (1,2,3,1,2) - also why are you blasting 2 kiai fountains
deal with it you didnt speak up for your map for an entire month so that means your interest was most likely lost and thus the veto was lifted later on
not speaking up for your veto after a month means it's invalid (:
not speaking up for your veto after a month means it's invalid (:
I actually agree with Xexxar
Rhythm / visuals / flow can be improved here.
00:00:172 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,1,2,1,2,3,4,5,1) - what is this rhythm? Honestly its a 3 (THREE!!!!) star map
Its not supposed to be technical, or something.
The melody is consistent, and as i suppose, the thythm shud be the same? Honestly, I can clearly understand Xexxar's points, he is right in the fact that... uh at least rhythms can be reconsidered.
example of spacing issue:
01:04:457 (5,6,7,8) - the (8) equals (5) or (6) sound wise, the spacing between 7,8 shud be equal to 5,6 at least.
I mean... uh. Cmon, Im not even exaggerating, this map is still in questionable state.
Rhythm / visuals / flow can be improved here.
00:00:172 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,1,2,1,2,3,4,5,1) - what is this rhythm? Honestly its a 3 (THREE!!!!) star map
Its not supposed to be technical, or something.
The melody is consistent, and as i suppose, the thythm shud be the same? Honestly, I can clearly understand Xexxar's points, he is right in the fact that... uh at least rhythms can be reconsidered.
example of spacing issue:
01:04:457 (5,6,7,8) - the (8) equals (5) or (6) sound wise, the spacing between 7,8 shud be equal to 5,6 at least.
I mean... uh. Cmon, Im not even exaggerating, this map is still in questionable state.
This map is a mess. Rhythms and spacing are all over the place, hitobject usage and placement doesn't make sense, there's no cohesiveness.
I don't think it really matters, this map is about as forgetful as it gets and people will pretty much only play it for the song anyway, so I don't think it needs to be of particularly high quality, but in its current state this map is forgoing basic mapping standards and even official guidelines that can be found in the RC, and apparently there's people who care about that.
I don't really care about veto'ing rights or who ignored this map for a month or didn't but as it stands this map should probably not be pushed towards ranked quite yet.
I don't think it really matters, this map is about as forgetful as it gets and people will pretty much only play it for the song anyway, so I don't think it needs to be of particularly high quality, but in its current state this map is forgoing basic mapping standards and even official guidelines that can be found in the RC, and apparently there's people who care about that.
I don't really care about veto'ing rights or who ignored this map for a month or didn't but as it stands this map should probably not be pushed towards ranked quite yet.
Since I qualified I feel like I should state my opinion too here:
I am/was usually known for being quite stubborn when it comes to issues with consistency and the 'logic' of a map, yet I nominated it. That's because I tried to get rid of the narrow mindset that every single object must have a justification for its own existance and tried to look at the overall map. When I first had a glance at it in the editor I just went "what" but then testplayed it and it was an extremely enjoyable experience of this song. It's not like as soon as two single objects aren't consistent with each other that the map isn't following the song anymore, it still follows it on a bigger dimension than single objects. Hence I do not see much sense in arguing about "this was a slider here but is circles here!!!" - Not even minding what I just said, this is simply adding variety to a five-minute-map, yet is still variety that fits to the song and isn't just random.
Concerning some other issues that have been brought up in the last few posts here:
-Maps don't need to be sightreadable at all. Even so, I found the patterns that were brought up to be quite intuitive on my first play, but even if it wasn't I woudn't have minded, because I don't mind playing a map that I enjoy more than once. I don't think anyone creates their maps in order to be played once and then deleted. If you don't like the map enough to play it again, fine, but that's your issue alone.
-Please don't bring starrating into this. Just because it's 3* doesn't mean its target audience is 3*. Which it clearly isn't.
-"Specifically designing your mapset to literally be ugly with awkward overlaps and blatantly inconsistent patterning and design ..." - Honestly I never would've thought anything like that about this map. It's in a style that most aren't used to nowadays, but that's all there is to it. Whether you like a certain style or not is pmuch the most subjective thing in osu!mapping, but imo there is clearly a cohesive style to be recognized here throughout the whole map, a style which I find to work very well with the song. There are enough other maps that cater to your taste if you don't like this one, but please realize that this is extremely subjective.
-About that long slider: I originally thought it would just be lazy too but I read through UC's dozen of repeated explanations in previous mod-responses and asked further in irc. I realized that he wanted to express that section in a way that wouldn't have worked any other way, because breaks or regular rhythm just don't have the same effect as such a slider. This way, it actually differs from other sections that have similar vocal rhythms, and I find that justified since this section ins indeed very different to the others, it has a lot of tension and that tension is better built with that slider than with 'regular' mapping, or a break here (and instead mapping out the other break). I don't think anyone who cares enough to make a whole map of whatever lenght would just throw in some random slider bc they are lazy and don't care about how the map turns out to be. Assuming that someone doesn't care about their map like that is quite disrespectful imo.
I am/was usually known for being quite stubborn when it comes to issues with consistency and the 'logic' of a map, yet I nominated it. That's because I tried to get rid of the narrow mindset that every single object must have a justification for its own existance and tried to look at the overall map. When I first had a glance at it in the editor I just went "what" but then testplayed it and it was an extremely enjoyable experience of this song. It's not like as soon as two single objects aren't consistent with each other that the map isn't following the song anymore, it still follows it on a bigger dimension than single objects. Hence I do not see much sense in arguing about "this was a slider here but is circles here!!!" - Not even minding what I just said, this is simply adding variety to a five-minute-map, yet is still variety that fits to the song and isn't just random.
Concerning some other issues that have been brought up in the last few posts here:
-Maps don't need to be sightreadable at all. Even so, I found the patterns that were brought up to be quite intuitive on my first play, but even if it wasn't I woudn't have minded, because I don't mind playing a map that I enjoy more than once. I don't think anyone creates their maps in order to be played once and then deleted. If you don't like the map enough to play it again, fine, but that's your issue alone.
-Please don't bring starrating into this. Just because it's 3* doesn't mean its target audience is 3*. Which it clearly isn't.
-"Specifically designing your mapset to literally be ugly with awkward overlaps and blatantly inconsistent patterning and design ..." - Honestly I never would've thought anything like that about this map. It's in a style that most aren't used to nowadays, but that's all there is to it. Whether you like a certain style or not is pmuch the most subjective thing in osu!mapping, but imo there is clearly a cohesive style to be recognized here throughout the whole map, a style which I find to work very well with the song. There are enough other maps that cater to your taste if you don't like this one, but please realize that this is extremely subjective.
-About that long slider: I originally thought it would just be lazy too but I read through UC's dozen of repeated explanations in previous mod-responses and asked further in irc. I realized that he wanted to express that section in a way that wouldn't have worked any other way, because breaks or regular rhythm just don't have the same effect as such a slider. This way, it actually differs from other sections that have similar vocal rhythms, and I find that justified since this section ins indeed very different to the others, it has a lot of tension and that tension is better built with that slider than with 'regular' mapping, or a break here (and instead mapping out the other break). I don't think anyone who cares enough to make a whole map of whatever lenght would just throw in some random slider bc they are lazy and don't care about how the map turns out to be. Assuming that someone doesn't care about their map like that is quite disrespectful imo.
So to generalize your statement
playability > any rules that foricing map to be cohesive and have a logical background under things that exists.
I guess, we went thru this conversation so many times, and at the end its always a consensus between a map that looking good in-game and a map that looking good in editor.
For now, maybe its a good map for players, but it breaks so much fundamental stuff that got established over the past years.
So yea, Im still super concerned about this particular map, Its just not the way we do ranked maps nowadays.
playability > any rules that foricing map to be cohesive and have a logical background under things that exists.
I guess, we went thru this conversation so many times, and at the end its always a consensus between a map that looking good in-game and a map that looking good in editor.
For now, maybe its a good map for players, but it breaks so much fundamental stuff that got established over the past years.
So yea, Im still super concerned about this particular map, Its just not the way we do ranked maps nowadays.
Nope, to generalize my statement: "Its just not the way we do ranked maps nowadays" is not a reason for a map to be bad. That's how you stop the mapping-meta from ever changing/progressing. I'm the last person to say "it plays fine so idc whether it makes sense", I'm saying that a map can make sense in more ways than just "this single object represents this single beat". And I find it to look good in editor too, that's why I mentioned several times that that aspect is extremely subjective.
Don't try to intrepret my statement into something else for your sake, read and try to understand what I actually mean.
edit:
Don't try to intrepret my statement into something else for your sake, read and try to understand what I actually mean.
edit:
just for the record, I never said anything like that lolhi-mei wrote:
Dude you said EXACTLY the opposite to me 6 months ago when same drama appeared in my map.
Literally nobody in playerbase gonna notice how beautiful these irregularities are.Bonsai wrote:
I'm saying that a map can make sense in more ways than just "this single object represents this single beat".
Also on a more serious note, you do forget that people also learn mapping from ranked maps.
And I would not give this map to someone new to mapping.
I don't mind much the visuals, since that's a personally thing in some cases, but the intro rhythm is a mess
It's full of weird overlap and it doesn't follow a specific pattern :thinking:
The circles are like they are placed randomly, and sometimes there is stacks, and sometimes not, without specific reason
And the rhythm pattern in the begining is
The circles are like they are placed randomly, and sometimes there is stacks, and sometimes not, without specific reason
And the rhythm pattern in the begining is
Bonsai wrote:
-About that long slider: I originally thought it would just be lazy too but I read through UC's dozen of repeated explanations in previous mod-responses and asked further in irc. I realized that he wanted to express that section in a way that wouldn't have worked any other way, because breaks or regular rhythm just don't have the same effect as such a slider. This way, it actually differs from other sections that have similar vocal rhythms, and I find that justified since this section ins indeed very different to the others, it has a lot of tension and that tension is better built with that slider than with 'regular' mapping, or a break here (and instead mapping out the other break). I don't think anyone who cares enough to make a whole map of whatever lenght would just throw in some random slider bc they are lazy and don't care about how the map turns out to be. Assuming that someone doesn't care about their map like that is quite disrespectful imo.
The difference between this and a break is that in this I'm holding a key.
Which doesn't correspond to any of the louder, more beautiful sounds that I'm listening to the song.
I've read his explanations as well and that's still my opinion. You can say the tension is better built with that slider, but utilizing the vocals would also show the tension (as the "intensity" of this section comes from the vocal strain of the vocalist), paired with something that is, say, progressively louder hitsound volume, and would make more sense musically as well as being better for playing instead of this "fake break".
Instead, we have a "break that isn't a break". That's my opinion at the core of it all - this slider feels like an excuse of a break. Break or this slider, same thing. It doesn't feel like I'm playing the song. It feels like I'm waiting until the next section of the song comes along because the mapper had no ideas on how to map it so he tossed a long slider because why not.
I'll uphold my thought that this is incredibly lazy just as you can keep the thought that this is good and fine and rank this regardless of my feelings, but since I think I'm the first one to call this slider lazy directly I felt like I owed a little explanation as to why I hate this slider so much.
PS: I understand these points are subjective and in the end the mapper should represent the song however he wants, I just personally disagree very heavily with it.
@xexxar
I think it's offensive that you're forcibly trying to apply a new veto because your old veto was already dealt with, you cannot veto the same map twice in a row only( and most of those points you raised all were already addressed if you just look at the mapper's explanation)
It's kinda irony how you say other BN's are breaking the rules since it's the other way around,
you are kinda breaking the BNG rules trying to renew your veto lol, why are you contacting loctav???????
@
okay, good luck with your map it plays really well.
Just my 2 cents.
I think it's offensive that you're forcibly trying to apply a new veto because your old veto was already dealt with, you cannot veto the same map twice in a row only( and most of those points you raised all were already addressed if you just look at the mapper's explanation)
It's kinda irony how you say other BN's are breaking the rules since it's the other way around,
you are kinda breaking the BNG rules trying to renew your veto lol, why are you contacting loctav???????
@
I don't think you understand the map on a high enough baseline to even judge it or there's a huge perspective difference.Xexxar wrote:
stuff
"there is no logical structure to beat placement at the beginning of the song. we have basically the same rhythm every measure but you effectively randomly change your rhythms with no structure or purpose....( truncated )"
"I can continue but overall I believe this map is fundamentally flawed. Specifically designing your mapset to literally be ugly with awkward overlaps and blatantly inconsistent patterning and design is questionable....( truncated )"
I think the design is pretty acceptable for ranking, the song constantly shifts intensity and keeps doing different things, so the mapper decided to have somewhat variable visuals/rhythms based around that aspect of the song, making everything clean and structured would simply simplify the song, and is just a really meta-ish stupid decision.
"Usage of inconsistent rhythms and awkward 1/3rd rhythms that are nearly impossible to sight read due to your spacing being everywhere, the player has no reason to expect that 01:49:441 (1,2,3) - is 1/3rd when its patterning is literally designed to show the opposite. 01:56:298 (1,2,3,1) - difficult to read as you have 01:56:941 (2,3) - immediately after which is the same spacing as 01:58:655 (7,8) - and 01:56:584 (3,1) - ."
01:49:441 (1,2,3) - 01:56:298 (1,2,3,1) - those are indeed visually very counterintuitive from each other, however, those are rhythmically consistent and the mapper wants to challenge the player to depend less on the visuals and actively memorize the rhythms of the song, which is a really exotic concept I like cause it actually makes osu! a fucking rhythm game, your veto is basically "I can't read this pls chang"
"why are you blasting 2 kiai fountains "
Notice how those are spaced streams 01:56:298 (1,2,3,1) - and the song's vocals rises. So the first Kiai is for extra emphasize for that, the other Kiai is rhythmically consistent, check 01:49:870 -, Also it's not really good to say "why" when you try to veto something it makes it sound that you don't understand it rather than disagreeing with something.
"There doesn't seem to be reason for what is a slider and what isn't. During the kiai, you don't really follow anything in particular, and objects that are sliders in one section change to circles in the next. 01:58:870 (8) - vs 01:48:584 (6) - for example. The map seems to be everywhere and doesn't have any real structure behind it."
in a song like this rhythms can get really variable and constantly keep changing, the mapper simply decided to went for the vocals for the last part, the guitar/harp'ish chord and the vocals constantly changes intensity, so choosing one over the other is fine imo, and that's not even the same rhythmical phase lol.
"04:00:183 (1) - I didn't even mention this last time but, this isn't mapping to the song... it's just lazy mapping and is not acceptable."
the slow slider is just for the player to enjoy the vibe of the song, as people say people play this map mostly for the song :^) @zare
mapping it less dense or putting a break or anything would just make it less special cause the rest of the map is already interesting. so boring becomes the new interesting.
okay, good luck with your map it plays really well.
Just my 2 cents.
Xexxar trying to reapply his veto is probably the most logical thing happening on this thread. The intro rhythms have been explained over and over, forcing this map into generic clean boring ass patterning like the amazing full symmetry pachiru maps we all have seen 30 million times is retarded and purely subjective, the slider itself has been explained repeatedly and extensively and is not lazy mapping. Again, if Xexxar's veto should have held up then that is fine, but according to a member of the QAT it was invalidated. So please consider this before acting like idiots on the thread and trying to force your perspective of the song onto this map.
Naotoshi wrote:
Xexxar trying to reapply his veto is probably the most logical thing happening on this thread. The intro rhythms have been explained over and over, forcing this map into generic clean boring ass patterning like the amazing full symmetry pachiru maps we all have seen 30 million times is retarded and purely subjective, the slider itself has been explained repeatedly and extensively and is not lazy mapping. Again, if Xexxar's veto should have held up then that is fine, but according to a member of the QAT it was invalidated. So please consider this before acting like idiots on the thread and trying to force your perspective of the song onto this map.
well the rhythm isn't subjective, the visuals are yes. I hear the intro around 20 times and I still don't get what is the mapper trying to follow, it's super inconsistent, I'll try to mod this today later, because you really need to keep consistency with your own rhythms.
About the veto, as far I understand the mapper would need new BNs if there are not agreement between the parts.
Natsu wrote:
About the veto, as far I understand the mapper would need new BNs if there are not agreement between the parts.
You think about this, and realize that there was no disagreement with the response. the mapper tries to contact this person to reach an agreement for an entire month. what do you do in this case? give up on the map?
Find new BNs to veto xexxar's veto, that's what we are supposed to do in this situations, anyways I back up xexxar's mod (not the visual part, but the rhythm pats).bor wrote:
Natsu wrote:
About the veto, as far I understand the mapper would need new BNs if there are not agreement between the parts.
You think about this, and realize that there was no disagreement with the response. the mapper tries to contact this person to reach an agreement for an entire month. what do you do in this case? give up on the map?
Natsu wrote:
Find new BNs to veto xexxar's veto, that's what we are supposed to do in this situations, anyways I back up xexxar's mod (not the visual part, but the rhythm pats).
if xexxars veto is valid in the first place :^) I mean qat already spoke about this. kind of silly to talk in circles just saying "yo dude do this" and then "qat said do this so i did" meme.
bns are not easy to find for some people
Mod:
Osu
Insane:
-00:06:927(3)Move down a little bit
-00:12:488 (2)It should be closer to the No.1 slider
-00:14:511 (3, 5)Move down a little bit, I can't reach it when i test it
Taiko:
Skylish's Windlish Oni:
-00:14:511(1)You shouldn't use big circle, it isn't Osu! standard
:^)
Osu
Insane:
-00:06:927(3)Move down a little bit
-00:12:488 (2)It should be closer to the No.1 slider
-00:14:511 (3, 5)Move down a little bit, I can't reach it when i test it
Taiko:
Skylish's Windlish Oni:
-00:14:511(1)You shouldn't use big circle, it isn't Osu! standard
:^)
Hi friends. I get there is a discussion going on and that people aren't satisfied with the rhythms, but it would be nice if you guys replied to this post instead: UC has written very extensive reasoning and examples for the rhythms used in the introduction. Instead of saying you disagree with the rhythms, you could instead comment on UC's reasoning and agree/disagree with his reasoning there. That way the BN's and mappers involved can make more significant headway in discussing the controversial rhythms used in map. The post can be found on: p/5861117
Here's a quote for the rhythm parts if anyone's lazy:
Here's a quote for the rhythm parts if anyone's lazy:
UndeadCapulet wrote:
Thanks for you concerns, Xexxar! And thanks for dividing everything up into main issues, it was well-worded and easy to read :>
Since your post ended up being about a lot of general things, it'd be better for me to discuss things more generally as well instead of going line by line. Hope that's okay, feel free to let me know if there was a bulletpoint you especially wanted a response to.
Also, since it's mostly general, some things may just be able to be summarized as "uh i disagree". I only have general responses to your general replies, so they might not feel satisfying (also, wording words is hard orz). Let me know if I need to elaborate further on anything.
If I'm reading things right, there are 4 main issues you have with the map: unappealing visuals, rhythm inconsistencies, 1/3 readability, and the intro. With that said:InconsistencyConsistency is definitely something important in mapping. Songs are naturally repetitive, so concepts in a map should also repeat to express the song properly, and make the map feel cohesive and defined. Concerns like this are the ones I value the most in modding, so thank you for focusing on this more than visuals (though it would've been great if you hadn't focused on visuals at all ww).
I put a great deal of care into keeping rhythms and spacing consistent throughout the map, repeating for same-sounding sections of the song. You use the example of 01:58:870 (8) - vs 01:48:584 (6) - being a rhythm inconsistency, but I don't really see why, when 01:48:584 (6) - is ending a vocal verse and is matched by 04:33:170 (6) - , while 01:58:870 (8) - is in the middle of a vocal verse and has no relation. There is consistency, just not whatever you were looking for.
My response to Kisses' mod goes through nearly every note in the map. It discusses rhythm consistency, spacing consistency, and general concepts. If you have more specific examples of things I messed up on, I would love to hear them, since I don't really see your issue here. But check my reply to Kisses' reply first, since it talks about nearly everything.
Also, before Nao bubbled the map we spent like 4 hours going through pretty much every note, and Nao was happy with the justifications.IntroThis is definitely the most questionable part of the map imo, I have no problems with somebody popping over this.
The start of the song is a constant spam of piano at 1/2 beat (well, 1/4 at double bpm but you know what I mean). But mapping this wouldn't feel satisfying in the big picture of the map, because this section of thee song is really, really quiet and weak feeling. So instead I mapped this section with the idea to:I can try to walk through some of the intro to explain my thought process.
- introduce gameplay concepts that will appear throughout the map
- start with super minimal rhythming and slowly build in note density
- emphasize high pitched beats like 00:06:171 (4,5) - , 00:09:600 (5) - , etc.
Spacing is generally really low because I want as little motion as possible for this super quiet intro to contrast the bigger motions in the kiai sections. So you talk about ugly overlaps in the intro, that's why they're there.
00:00:172 (1) - to 00:13:029 (4) - is half a verse, and then it repeats starting at 00:13:886 (1) - with the introduction of a new instrument. The rhythms from the second half of the verse mirror the first half, with the exception of the added instruments. 00:00:172 (1,2,3,4) - matches 00:13:886 (1,2,3,4) - , 00:06:171 (4,5,1) - matches 00:19:886 (6,7,1) - , and so on. The second half is slightly more dense than the first half for previously explained reasons, but the previously emphasized beats are still the overall focus, unless something new shows up.
00:00:172 (1,2) - Is a really quiet start to a song, so I perfect stack. No cursor motion reflects the quiet start, as well as the 1/1 rhythm gap. Also, now the player knows this map has perfectly stacked objects.
00:02:743 (5,1) - The first introduction to a common theme in the map: Downbeats frequently reverse play direction. It's overlapped because the overall spacing is so slow, but I still need the heavy direction change here, so this is the resulting placement.
00:05:529 (3) - The first 1/2 beat shows up here, so to keep note density low I avoid mapping 00:04:029 - . It also helps to emphasize 00:06:171 (4) - when we get back to white tick clicking.
00:06:814 (5,1) - These are both really weak high tick piano beats, so they are stacked together to reduce motion, and the spacing from 00:06:171 (4) - is smaller. Lower spacing for weak stressed high pitches is a very common theme of the map.
00:08:529 (3,4) - First instance of multiple 1/2 clicks, note density is slowly increasing more and more.
00:09:600 (5) - Slidershape reduces motion here to emphasize the high pitch for similar reasons as above.
00:10:457 (1,2,3,4) - End of the first half of the verse, things get simplified to build into the next half, where the song begins to repeat itself. Another common theme of the map.
00:16:243 (5,6) - The first 1/2 jump, emphasizing the new instrumental. The player is now aware of 1/2 jumps. Spacing is slowly building in intensity as well. Also, this introduces sliders that feed back into the prior circle, another common theme.
00:16:457 (6,1) - As a quick example, this motion matches 00:02:743 (5,1) - , but larger. The whole intro works with this concept.
---
And so on. Mapping every piano beat would be very unfitting in the big picture imo, so I did this kind of thing instead. If you have suggestions for better rhythming, feel free to suggest them, I totally understand these rhythmings being questionable.
Hope I understood you properly, and I hope I made some form of sense in my ramblings.
Sorry to see you didn't enjoy my map. But I definitely don't think it's "fundamentally flawed", we just disagree about what should be focused on in mapping. If you can put the visual differences aside, I'd be happy to discuss further.
---
Also, to anyone following this thread, I'm considering changing the rhythms at 04:31:027 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - or 02:13:870 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - to be more consistent with each other. I originally wanted the second kiai to blend the two halves of the first kiai together (since it's half as long), but the better experience may just be to fully match everything. Would love to hear other opinions!
If you think mapping the introduction will bore the player, you've failed as a mapper. Make it interesting, it's not hard.
If you (UndeadCapulet) need to constantly explain every note to someone, you have failed as a mapper, because if your map's themes or concepts need to be explained constantly, they're clearly not coherent and don't belong in the ranked section.
If your concept has people questioning what it even is to begin with, you've failed. There's a big difference between people "Not understanding" and "Not liking". It's quite possible to understand a map's concept and hate it. But when you can't understand the concept to begin with, (if there even is one other than "I think the intro rhythm is boring and would rather have my own entirely different one and just make it kind of consistent") there's no second step. It can't be liked or hated if it's not understood.
If your map needs a spoken or written tutorial, you've fucked up. Just change it and save everyone the headache.
And for what it's worth "Nobody bothered contacting Xexxar at all but he didn't show up for a month so clearly he doesn't care" is a hilariously asshole way of going about bypassing a veto. I expected better from you guys.
If you (UndeadCapulet) need to constantly explain every note to someone, you have failed as a mapper, because if your map's themes or concepts need to be explained constantly, they're clearly not coherent and don't belong in the ranked section.
If your concept has people questioning what it even is to begin with, you've failed. There's a big difference between people "Not understanding" and "Not liking". It's quite possible to understand a map's concept and hate it. But when you can't understand the concept to begin with, (if there even is one other than "I think the intro rhythm is boring and would rather have my own entirely different one and just make it kind of consistent") there's no second step. It can't be liked or hated if it's not understood.
If your map needs a spoken or written tutorial, you've fucked up. Just change it and save everyone the headache.
And for what it's worth "Nobody bothered contacting Xexxar at all but he didn't show up for a month so clearly he doesn't care" is a hilariously asshole way of going about bypassing a veto. I expected better from you guys.
you also seem to misunderstand the issue with xexxar as people are claiming they tried to contact him for a month, only he is the one claiming nobody contacted him. And if anything is asshole-ish its veto-ing a bubble on a map, abandoning it, and then trying to dq the map after a discussion about the parts that were in question already occured. Another asshole-ish thing to do would be posting on a thread without reading replies or understanding the situation and assuming something. So thanks so much for your time you really benefited this map thread.Shiirn wrote:
If you think mapping the introduction will bore the player, you've failed as a mapper. Make it interesting, it's not hard.
If you (UndeadCapulet) need to constantly explain every note to someone, you have failed as a mapper, because if your map's themes or concepts need to be explained constantly, they're clearly not coherent and don't belong in the ranked section.
If your concept has people questioning what it even is to begin with, you've failed. There's a big difference between people "Not understanding" and "Not liking". It's quite possible to understand a map's concept and hate it. But when you can't understand the concept to begin with, (if there even is one other than "I think the intro rhythm is boring and would rather have my own entirely different one and just make it kind of consistent") there's no second step. It can't be liked or hated if it's not understood.
If your map needs a spoken or written tutorial, you've fucked up. Just change it and save everyone the headache.
saying a mapper has failed if people can't understand their purpose is a misguided approach. Sure I can use the wording you've used and find any newer mapper say "understand this" to a lot of widely accepted maps and get a response of "no". Though this wouldn't invalidate the mapper in any way. If anything its easier to argue if the modder doesn't understand the map they failed as a modder, though this can be logically falsified. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean other people cannot. This is why explaining what a map is doing happens ever. As for them being explained constantly, don't you think people cannot read prior posts? Don't you think people who dislike the map or don't understand its concepts are much more likely to post asking about them than people posting on this map "hey I like this and fully understand your reasoning behind the map. this is really cool" because hey you can rate this map without even entering the thread itself. Asking someone to give up on their idea means you failed as a modder. Modders are supposed to take the mappers ideas and make them better when all you want to do is throw them away.
And for what it's worth "Nobody bothered contacting Xexxar at all but he didn't show up for a month so clearly he doesn't care" is a hilariously asshole way of going about bypassing a veto. I expected better from you guys.
Just on a side note, the whole rebubble-over-veto-thing has already been brought up to the people in charge, so try to keep the discussion about the map instead!
We clearly need way more time to discuss this beatmap
also the entire process was kinda screwed up from both sides and at this point everyone's claiming something different.
The way I see it: Xexxar screwed up communicating that he still has issues with this particular map and participating in this discussion over here
Naotoshi and Zero__wind as well as Bonsai didn't bother asking the person who popped if they still have issues with the beatmap before nominating it themselves
We will hopefully push an update to the BNG rules soon so that this scenario is simply disallowed from happening.
The intro rhythms still seem to be overinterpreting this part of the song so it's being taken down for further discussion
i hope you people can behave yourselves
also the entire process was kinda screwed up from both sides and at this point everyone's claiming something different.
The way I see it: Xexxar screwed up communicating that he still has issues with this particular map and participating in this discussion over here
Naotoshi and Zero__wind as well as Bonsai didn't bother asking the person who popped if they still have issues with the beatmap before nominating it themselves
We will hopefully push an update to the BNG rules soon so that this scenario is simply disallowed from happening.
The intro rhythms still seem to be overinterpreting this part of the song so it's being taken down for further discussion
i hope you people can behave yourselves
I think the issue here is people are mistaking creating rhythms out of thin air over giving actual logic behind rhythm choices. The map takes simples rhythms that repeat over and over again and then takes paragraphs and paragraphs of text in order to convey what was created. This just seems so counter productive to me as to actually representing the song through your map.
In addition, it just seems very unintuitive to have such complex ideas for a very simple part of the song. And to me what makes this quite weird is how the start is just such a stand-out part compared to the rest of the song, while that part of the song is actually quite boring.
And lastly, I have to disagree with bor here. When no one understands what you're going for until you write paragraphs about it, you have failed to convey your ideas correctly. If this happens you should reconsider what you were going for in the first place and how best to get that through to other people in an effective way. So yeah, make people understand what you want to express in your rhythms not with mod replies, but with your actual map. I don't think the rhythms at the start are as bad as some other people, but the inconsistencies just clash with the rest of the map and is so out of place. Just my thoughts on the matter (they are quite a mess and disorganized sorry about that) and hopefully this can get cleared up as the rest of the map is quite nice
The undermapping of the start is fine, but since the beginning is so identical the entire way having more consistency with what you mapped vs what you ignored in the start would greatly help give a clearer idea of what is being done. In addition, the increase in note density during the intro doesn't fit too well since the song stays the same the whole way. You seem to jump over certain piano sounds and sometimes not.
In addition, it just seems very unintuitive to have such complex ideas for a very simple part of the song. And to me what makes this quite weird is how the start is just such a stand-out part compared to the rest of the song, while that part of the song is actually quite boring.
And lastly, I have to disagree with bor here. When no one understands what you're going for until you write paragraphs about it, you have failed to convey your ideas correctly. If this happens you should reconsider what you were going for in the first place and how best to get that through to other people in an effective way. So yeah, make people understand what you want to express in your rhythms not with mod replies, but with your actual map. I don't think the rhythms at the start are as bad as some other people, but the inconsistencies just clash with the rest of the map and is so out of place. Just my thoughts on the matter (they are quite a mess and disorganized sorry about that) and hopefully this can get cleared up as the rest of the map is quite nice
The undermapping of the start is fine, but since the beginning is so identical the entire way having more consistency with what you mapped vs what you ignored in the start would greatly help give a clearer idea of what is being done. In addition, the increase in note density during the intro doesn't fit too well since the song stays the same the whole way. You seem to jump over certain piano sounds and sometimes not.
Topic Starter
@Shiirn re-read my posts please, I never said anything about the intro being boring, I wouldn't have mapped this song if I thought that lmao.. all I said is in the big picture of the map this section is too weak/not-intense for heavy 1/2 rhythming
@celerihreally don't know what you're talking about, the intro rhythms are the least complex rhythms in the mapnvm just saw the edit
@oko so with this whole veto debacle, I don't rly know what I need to do regarding gathering bn's. Is it assumed the veto is in place? (and uh that doesn't veto both nao AND zero's bubble right? that'd be really weird..)
And I'd be happy to discuss the intro rhythms more to make improvements/justify what I currently have, but so far there hasn't been any suggestions for better rhythms, just general complaints. I have nothing to go off of, so I don't really know where to go from here.
@celerih
@oko so with this whole veto debacle, I don't rly know what I need to do regarding gathering bn's. Is it assumed the veto is in place? (and uh that doesn't veto both nao AND zero's bubble right? that'd be really weird..)
And I'd be happy to discuss the intro rhythms more to make improvements/justify what I currently have, but so far there hasn't been any suggestions for better rhythms, just general complaints. I have nothing to go off of, so I don't really know where to go from here.
I really don't want to go into what parts of the map I don't like, because I don't particularly like a lot of it (however i really like 00:55:029 (1,2,3) - these sliders + their repeats)
04:00:183 (1) - This is pretty unacceptable though. Even disregarding the absolutely ridiculous SV and length, this isn't even justifiable with the music, as there is still vocals/background notes that can be mapped to, much better than a fucking 26.5/1 measure long slider with a SV of 0.19 at 70bpm. Please remap(?lol) this.
04:00:183 (1) - This is pretty unacceptable though. Even disregarding the absolutely ridiculous SV and length, this isn't even justifiable with the music, as there is still vocals/background notes that can be mapped to, much better than a fucking 26.5/1 measure long slider with a SV of 0.19 at 70bpm. Please remap(?lol) this.
yea lets write more paragraphs instead of taking 30 mins of ur time and changing these cancerous parts
after I see this map i must say I really enjoy it. almost every aspect of this map makes logical sense to me and I felt obligated to share this to you because I'm upset this is not currently ranked.
this map is very special to me because its something the ranked section doesn't normally see, its a breath of fresh air from all the generic smog rolling in from these popular uninspired mappers. thank you so much for complimenting such a beautiful song with an outstanding piece of art.
this is one i can enjoy watching in editor and playing in game
thanks so much ~
shot 48 stars but i wish i could shoot so many more
this map is very special to me because its something the ranked section doesn't normally see, its a breath of fresh air from all the generic smog rolling in from these popular uninspired mappers. thank you so much for complimenting such a beautiful song with an outstanding piece of art.
this is one i can enjoy watching in editor and playing in game
thanks so much ~
shot 48 stars but i wish i could shoot so many more
this thread.. just smh
Also UC,good work i didnt expect less from you c:
Also UC,good work i didnt expect less from you c:
gratz on loved when you get 30 favs