Thanks for summing up Loc. This gives me a lesson too.

Everything about this map feels forced
Its just my opion though so who cares
∠( ｀・ω・)/

The matter of AR is a really subjective one. One can deem a high AR (10) reasonable, since the first 60% of the map is full 280 BPM jumps and such. One can also claim that the AR needs to be lowered (to 9) because of the 2nd part.

In the end, it's all up to the mapper, and people should start respecting his choice of AR

While we're at it, go and support This thread since this will be a perfect example on why it should be added. Give AR 10 to the first part, and AR 7-8 to the second part

Hi Loctav. Thanks for the post.

I want to raise the question: "How can you tell if someone's qualified to judge a map properly?" Because I don't believe you need to be able to fc, or even pass the map to be able to judge the map's playability.

I've been involved with very difficult beatmaps for nearly a year now. I've both had experience mapping multiple 7+ star maps, and ranking multiple 7+ and even 8+ star maps. I'm sure there are other BN's out there who have done the same.

I think we're undervaluing people's ability to analyze difficult maps. Like other very difficult maps I've participated in, I'm confident that I know how it everything will play, the different angles (when playing vs. in editor), slider leniency, where players will likely abuse leniency, flow, where players are likely to singletap versus alternate, readability, etc...

Some of these jumps are simply very large. Perhaps the best example is: 02:55:471 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,1,1) - . I can't actually land the jumps, but I can know how they will play. If I scaled it down, the angles would be exactly the same, as with other jumps. The flow as well. As well, the ratio between white > red tick jumps, and red > white ticks (emphasis, basically) is also scaled down. If a smaller version of this exact same jump was used in another map, no one would have questioned the BN's ability to judge the specific pattern. The difference here isn't the high bpm, the angles, the spacing, the emphasis ratio, or anything like that. Those can all be scaled down, and applied to other bpms, and you'd still be able to judge their playability. The only things that can't be applied elsewhere are whether the patterns fit the song at that exact moment, and whether the spacing of the jumps are uncomfortable (ie, too big relative to the rest of the map, or too small). Patterns like these have, of course, undergone extensive reworking based on testplays, replays, BN's and high-ranked players' suggestions.

What I am saying is, the vast majority of this map can in fact be judged by most BN's. Just because something is 8.3 stars, doesn't mean everything is 8.3 stars and therefore cannot be accurately judged. I'm sure I can judge at least 98% of the map accurately, and I think my BN's can too. However, I do acknowledge my shortcomings, as some of those jumps are beyond me. I can only judge that in theory, based on rhythm, spacing, emphasis, angles, structure etc... they will play well, and operate as how I envisioned them when I mapped them. I can't judge whether they fit, or whether they are just uncomfortable to play. But, I think everyone who's mapped difficult stuff is already aware of this. It's why when we ask for testplays, or when we spectate/watch replays, we look particularly at certain sections of the map that we don't feel confident in.

I will proceed with ranking my other maps in the meantime, but I want to come back to this map in the near future. I still have some mods I need to reply to, and the modders have spent a good chunk of their time writing them, so I want to at least give them feedback. I hope we can come to a mutual understanding.

i guess ar10 is reasonable here....
but in general i think ar10 should be used extremely sparingly. ar10 is not attainable for some people without immense time and effort, and there are probably a few for whom it is a physical impossibility. there are people with a quarter of my playcount who can read ar10 and i can hardly read it, and it's not like i never play ar10, i actually play it a decent amount. i'm sure there are many others like me, and i've already met a few, some higher ranked than me.

on the other hand, learning a slightly lower ar (9.7 instead of 10, come on it's not even that big of a difference) is far, far easier. i'm currently trying to learn EZ and although it's difficult it is still so much easier for me than learning ar10, which ive only recently just scratched the surface of. probably just bias on my part because i cant read ar10 but can people please just lower their ar threshold by .3, it's not even that big of a difference and not really all that hard, it's not like ar7 or something.

in general i guess osu isnt ready for this map yet, aesthetically speaking. maybe it doesnt play well, i dont know because i havent tried it, and if it plays badly that's a problem. but its intentionally "ugly" design, though very cool imo, isnt objectively good or bad; it just depends on what's fashionable atm and what the community likes. unfortunately most people cant seem to appreciate this kind of concept yet (and by the looks of they never will). shame.

i hope notch hell gets ranked

also to people who say this song wasn't meant to be mapped, why? this song has a steady bpm and offers up tons of interesting sounds to map to. how unadventurous does one have to be to claim that

Monstrata pls put AR10 already, makes it more playable because holy fuck the BPM of these jumps for over half the map... :<

I think more of the problem is that it's possible to even find BNs for something like this. Personally I feel like there's a little bit of a bias going on here. If you look at the statistics for the duration it was qualified, 90% of the people playing the map disliked it and gave it extremely poor ratings. I'm not sure if that has to do with them not being able to play the map or just their overall opinion on the structure of the map (but it's probably a mix of both). If you actually want input from the community, you need to listen to them. Otherwise, the statistics from the community speaks for itself. This map is basically a "fuck you" to other mappers that are trying to get more enjoyable and realistic maps out there. That's just my opinion, but I've seen a lot of responses from others in the community and I think this is a pretty accurate depiction of this whole situation. I think you need to look more into understanding why people dislike the map (and do something about it) rather than going to your friends or whatever you do for testplays just to see if it's actually playable. Sure I don't have as much experience with mapping as some of the people in this thread, let alone do I even have a ranked map, but this map is really pushing it in my opinion and I agree with what most of Loctav said.

Yuii- wrote:

For those suggesting AR10, please think about that again. More than 50% of the song is really calm. That doesn't fit.
Also, .3 difference shouldn't be that much of a problem.

for those suggesting ar9.7, please think about that again. more than 50% of the song is really fucking insane. that doesn't fit.
i mean you can play a calm part with ar10 and it'd be ok as for player, but hard part with ar9.7 is a pain in the ass.
and .3 difference makes a lots of effect

340 wrote:

hard part with ar9.7 is a pain in the ass.
and .3 difference makes a lots of effect

Thanks

Monstrata, I feel like Loctav's post about the community being able to properly judge the map has more to do with the fact that this map pushes the boundaries of contemporary mapping in terms of build-up and structure in general rather than just difficulty, which is why the difficulty is not necessarily the thing that matters the most, but your new age approach is. Hollow Wings pushes boundaries reasonably roughly with his creations, whereas this is more like a bulldozer compared to that.

It's a bit like asking a traditional chef to judge molecular gastronomy dishes, it's just not going to go well unless the chef learns his way around that area.

Sadly for A-L-I-E-N, the area is one that is unexplored, so nobody can actually judge it properly or learn to judge it properly unless a few years of new age mapping allow the community to get to such a point.

So, 2019 mapping style? Great.

01:24:363 (1) - why is this slider 1/2 instead of 1/3 like 01:24:145 (4) -? there's no vocal here yet

Look, this map looks like shit and plays like butter. The jumps flow inexplicably well, the only jumps that don't feel like butter to me are - guess what - the hardest jumps in the map; the reason? I'm no where near good enough to play them. Maybe people should keep that in mind when thinking about this map. Worth noting that I even thing the 1/4 sliders play incredibly well too, everything works fine.

The map plays smooth and looks shit. Nothing about this plays/reads badly, if it's unrankable, it's because of a lack of blankets and other redundant aesthetic things that people care about and maybe a few small issues that need to be forked out with a comb.

Personally I could not give two fucks about aesthetics if it the map plays well.

Also please don't compare this map to anything wings has done, this map plays like a fairly standard map in my opinion; relatively easy to read with natural flowing triangle jumps. It's just ugly as fuck and people seem to think ugly mapping is "20XX never before seen shitmapping".

EDIT: AR9.2 was cooler.

Exactly what Jesse said, it's kinda like Tengaku tbh.

Kynan wrote:

Exactly what Jesse said, it's kinda like Tengaku tbh.

It feels FAR more natural than tengaku too, harder in places but never quite as iffy to follow.

jesse1412 wrote:

Look, this map looks like shit and plays like butter. The jumps flow inexplicably well, the only jumps that don't feel like butter to me are - guess what - the hardest jumps in the map; the reason? I'm no where near good enough to play them. Maybe people should keep that in mind when thinking about this map. Worth noting that I even thing the 1/4 sliders play incredibly well too, everything works fine.

The map plays smooth and looks shit. Nothing about this plays/reads badly, if it's unrankable, it's because of a lack of blankets and other redundant aesthetic things that people care about and maybe a few small issues that need to be forked out with a comb.

Personally I could not give two fucks about aesthetics if it the map plays well.

Also please don't compare this map to anything wings has done, this map plays like a fairly standard map in my opinion; relatively easy to read with natural flowing triangle jumps. It's just ugly as fuck and people seem to think ugly mapping is "20XX never before seen shitmapping".

EDIT: AR9.2 was cooler.

tbh i think it looks kinda cool but idk

Gotta agree with Jesse, it really hasn't got anything new in terms of playing except a few parts which are quite linear (notably the early pentagon part) but plays like any other map, just upscaled in bpm.

Bara- wrote:

The matter of AR is a really subjective one. One can deem a high AR (10) reasonable, since the first 60% of the map is full 280 BPM jumps and such. One can also claim that the AR needs to be lowered (to 9) because of the 2nd part.

In the end, it's all up to the mapper, and people should start respecting his choice of AR

This is exactly because it's something really subjective that it shouldn't be decided by only one person...
This is so subjective that it should be decided by everyone.

There's too much maps that are not played because the choosen AR is too low.

I'd say that the low AR is one of the main reason why people start playing DT or HR or don't play old maps...

It's Monstrata's map, he should be the one who decides everything.

isopaharuntikka wrote:

It's Monstrata's map, he should be the one who decides everything.

And what exactly is "everything"?

isopaharuntikka wrote:

It's Monstrata's map, he should be the one who decides everything.

Damn we are lucky, imagine if he couldn't read AR9, he would put AR8 in the map and it should be fine right ?

You can actually turn a good map to a shitmap (and reciprocally) just by putting the wrong AR.

But the AR is never good for everyone. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Also some stuff I do think plays a bit crap:

01:33:991 (1) - Way too fast and the slider ticks aren't easy to slide across/follow which makes it really hard to read/follow.
01:36:344 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3) - These "triples" play like arse, I'd recommend just making them into actual triples or something, tacking them onto slider ends isn't good.

As much as I think ar9 would be cool, I'll add that the current ar is perfectly fine across the map for me. If you can make it to the slow part you won't even second guess what's happening at this ar unless the miracles of jesus himself have carried you past the large jumps. Also regarding those huge jumps, I can't play them properly but they're literally upscaled versions of the other jumps in the map so for an able player they're probably nice and smooth.

jesse1412 wrote:

Kynan wrote:

Exactly what Jesse said, it's kinda like Tengaku tbh.

It feels FAR more natural than tengaku too, harder in places but never quite as iffy to follow.

Because it uses comfortable angles and patterns, while Tengaku explores the uncomfortable ones. =P

ar8 gogogogogogo

I feel like there are two main points people make about this map, and why they don't think it should be ranked:

The first one is, that the map looks ugly, but I haven't seen a single explanation why this is a bad thing. Why is it more fun to click on a good looking slider rather than one that is "ugly"? And on top of that, as has been mentioned a lot of times, the "ugly" sliders fit the "ugly" music.

The other thing is, people say this map was deliberately made to play poorly (even though a lot of other people say that the map plays surprisingly well). The main issue I have with this argument is, that these people forget (or don't realize) that there can be more to a map than "how well it plays". Charles445's podcast talked a bit about it, how maps can have an emotional effect on the player, besides "this feels good to play" or "it felt great that I fc'ed that bit". My point is, that making the map "play worse" is justifiable, if the reason was to make the map fit the song better, or in some other way add to the experience.

Adding to all the comments I've seen about this map. It's not even the first time something like this has happened. As I said in the map disqus when it was qualified, it comes to my mind gmtn vs. kozato - squartatrice by soulfear

jawns wrote:

I feel like there are two main points people make about this map, and why they don't think it should be ranked:

The first one is, that the map looks ugly, but I haven't seen a single explanation why this is a bad thing. Why is it more fun to click on a good looking slider rather than one that is "ugly"? And on top of that, as has been mentioned a lot of times, the "ugly" sliders fit the "ugly" music.

The other thing is, people say this map was deliberately made to play poorly (even though a lot of other people say that the map plays surprisingly well). The main issue I have with this argument is, that these people forget (or don't realize) that there can be more to a map than "how well it plays". Charles445's podcast talked a bit about it, how maps can have an emotional effect on the player, besides "this feels good to play" or "it felt great that I fc'ed that bit". My point is, that making the map "play worse" is justifiable, if the reason was to make the map fit the song better, or in some other way add to the experience.

Exactly this, the entire point of the uglyness of the map was to give an emotional impact on the player. Its like "wow! i can really feel how ugly this song is through the map!"

Sadly, as he mentioned in the podcast, people are doing this less and less, and focusing on only the good looking and playable things that we call "meta".

01:47:749 - i'm pretty sure you need a note here. it's a bit too close to the next sound, but it's existent and it needs to be mapped. good solution is to add a repeat to last slider
02:21:185 (3,4) - he keeps screaming here right until the (4), so it would be fitting to keep the same speed between 3 and 4.
maybe like this http://i.imgur.com/fwZSzwh.png
it looks a bit weird to have only 2 circles stacked, so i'd better do this instead: http://i.imgur.com/DBZfomv.jpg
02:39:407 - this circle needs to be removed, no sound here
02:42:960 (9) - same tbh
02:49:010 (1) - please ctrl+j (on the same position), just for my enjoyment (and better flow)
02:50:353 (1) - the second sound (all red ticks) is actually a bit earlier than the red tick. it's on the 1/8 tick. i'm pretty sure you already know this. i think it would be quite fun if it was mapped like that: http://i.imgur.com/tbRQzvA.png

01:36:505 (2,3) - and reminding you about wrong triples which indeed sounds like 1/3 for me http://i.imgur.com/82ESJ0F.png

Maybe by picking dedicated "ugly" patterns.. For example, 4 patterns but using them randomly could give the feeling of "ugly" without actually being ugly. It remains consistent with same patterns so that way it can provide an "insane" feeling? It would still look nice though. Maybe thats a good happy medium for the craziness

Hmm... Why you adding again maximum in tags again? It's already in artist?

Repost this part of blue dragon msg, cause i thinks it explain perfectly with this map should not be ranked.

Second point: There is no proof of thorough playtesting and player input in the map. If the beatmap is truly directed to its target audience based on star rating, then it's extremely weird to not see any input from top 100 players, and the ones I've asked about, were feeling offended that such a beatmap was ranked in the first place - they didn't feel it was enjoyable to play or a needed map in the ranked section. If you can't even please the small target audience you're directing your map to, then there's something definitely wrong with the map.

I find it kinda funny that map's SR drops to 3.65* if you delete first ~3 minutes.

Imo if you cut it in half and make two maps out of this song (with full diff spreads) it's actually rankable.

Kibbleru wrote:

"wow! i can really feel how ugly this song is through the map!"

This made me laugh too hard.

Catshy wrote:

I find it kinda funny that map's SR drops to 3.65* if you delete first ~3 minutes.

i find it kinda funny that water is wet

Spaghetti wrote:

Catshy wrote:

I find it kinda funny that map's SR drops to 3.65* if you delete first ~3 minutes.

i find it kinda funny that water is wet

"Water isn't wet. Wetness is a description of our experience of water; what happens to us when we come into contact with water in such a way that it impinges on our state of being. We, or our possessions, 'get wet'."

idke wrote:

Spaghetti wrote:

i find it kinda funny that water is wet

"Water isn't wet. Wetness is a description of our experience of water; what happens to us when we come into contact with water in such a way that it impinges on our state of being. We, or our possessions, 'get wet'."

forget the map; this thread is the real art

on a separate note, this song has evolved into a bit of guilty pleasure for me and I hate myself for it.

IamKwaN wrote:

Looking through the map, I find some of the inputs provided by the community valid.

Please have your discussion stick to the map only and anything not constructive would be removed.

EDIT:

hoozimajiget wrote:

But the actual song length noted in the album track listing is 4:46. So how are there 14 seconds of artificially generated length?

I am curious about this.

I hope you are curious. I completely disagree with 5 minutes being bottom limit for approval, but if we have rules let's try not to find iffy ways around them. This way I can record my dog barking for 1 minute and loop it over a drum beat, call it "Super Funny Dog Remix Extension", add it to every 4 minute song and go for approval. The guitar sounds here might be part of the song's performance, but they don't have any rhythmical timing nor contribute to song's composition in any way.

Akali wrote:

IamKwaN wrote:

Looking through the map, I find some of the inputs provided by the community valid.

Please have your discussion stick to the map only and anything not constructive would be removed.

EDIT:


I hope you are curious. I completely disagree with 5 minutes being bottom limit for approval, but if we have rules let's try not to find iffy ways around them. This way I can record my dog barking for 1 minute and loop it over a drum beat, call it "Super Funny Dog Remix Extension", add it to every 4 minute song and go for approval. The guitar sounds here might be part of the song's performance, but they don't have any rhythmical timing nor contribute to song's composition in any way.

I realize this is off topic, but just chiming in for a sec.

I mean, I remember how much crap asphyxias kyoumei map got for using the chorus again or something at the end. He ended up DQing because of the huge amount of crap he got. However we still see this way of circumventing the 5min mark ranked quite a few times since that. I guess these things will be updated in the soon to be reworked RC, but we still need some clarification on this because rules seem to bend depending on the map when it comes to this.

Maybe peoples doesn't like your map because it's just bad lol

i like those kicksliders and some parts of the maps, but it sometimes feel a bit weird to play :d