1. this map should REALLY be od 9.7 at least, I pointed this out in the previous mod I gave alongside the AR (which you changed god bless you), I know there's no notelock potential but there's really no reason for an 8+ star map to have an OD less than 9.5 honestly with how difficult the jumps are lol
2. 00:28:922 (1,2,3,4) - this is probably the most awkward to hit pattern of the mini-jumps in this section and imo it's actually because this is not "ugly" enough,
   there's a distinct sort of patterning with 00:30:624 (1,2,3,4) - and 00:34:046 (1,2,3,4) - that's just lost in the square here
3. 00:38:356 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - bro u butchered this so badly what the heck this fits WAY more as jumps instead of stacks
4. 00:40:812 (6,1) - would personally increase the spacing here, i keep overaiming this as it stands rn and it doesn't feel really that emphasized
5. 00:44:449 (2,3) - idk if this was the same in the previous iteration of the map but on the contrary this feels way TOO emphasized, placing it near 00:43:799 (3)
   would be a lot better imo
6. 00:48:192 (3,4) - was better as one repeat slider since you keep consistency with 00:29:347 (5) - this section
7. 00:49:949 (1,2,3,4) - what happen 2 the spacing here lol
8. 00:53:096 (2,3) - ^
9. 00:57:079 (5,6,1) - the new pattern in general is pretty cool but i'm not a huge fan of having an obtuse angle here, just personal preference tho xd
10. 01:02:008 (5,6,7,8) - idk if you meant to change the spacing on these last two jumps but if you did then k hand: since it really doesn't affect anything
11. 01:38:058 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5) - alright so this is basically the only problem i have with the entire map (plus the other section like this), while this is definitely an intense section of the song i feel representing this with 1/4 kicksliders especially at this high of a bpm and this awkward of an angle is ridiculous; it's a lot better to play with ar 10 now but it still just feels so out of place with the rest of the song, even just increasing the spacing of how far apart these are would make this so much easier to play imo since they feel so clustered together for no particular reason (obviously this goes for 02:26:362 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4) - these sections too but that's a lot more iffy of a solution)
12. 01:47:749 - you can be edgy here and add a note for the guitar xd
13. 02:25:494 (1,2,3,4,5) - make this a star jump tbh, could be a lot more intense here than just a pentagon
14. 02:26:362 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4) - fuck this part
15. 02:43:685 (1,2) - better as a vertical jump than a sideways jump imo

Gokateigo wrote:

my opinion

This map sucks tbh, you shitmapped a huge part because you think metal is disgusting, Mazzerin maps death metal and thinks song representation is more important than aesthetics. His maps are NOT ugly af, they are a bit ugly sometimes (with really ugly sounds, not everything) but his style fits very well to metal, you should map something similar to his style in the "ugly" part and map ugly sliders when they are in the middle of the calm part because you can't change your style for 2 objects. If you map something like this I'll bee happy if it's ranked, it's just a random shit map atm for me

gl I guess

mvb wrote:

No. The song is ugly. Time signatures and BPM changes all over the place, it doesn't follow any pattern at all. He mapped it ugly because MTH made an ugly song. It's not any classic death metal songs with double-pedals going on for 2 minutes and a half. You're comparing apples and carrots.

EDIT: Can y'all stop caring about difficulty and care about mapping please thanks

UnstoppableVP wrote:

Just because Vaxei can mash his way through this map with dt doesn't necessarily mean it's playable

fieryrage wrote:

this just in Monstrata Goes Balls Deep and this thread is a shitshow

i'm gonna remod from a player perspective this time cuz i really don't care about the aesthetics of this map like everyone else, you don't have to give kds since the map really hasn't changed but idc xd

1. this map should REALLY be od 9.7 at least, I pointed this out in the previous mod I gave alongside the AR (which you changed god bless you), I know there's no notelock potential but there's really no reason for an 8+ star map to have an OD less than 9.5 honestly with how difficult the jumps are lol OD 9.4 is fine. You didn't really give any reason other than "its too low". But I already stated that OD 9.4 is high enough to avoid any potential notelocking.
2. 00:28:922 (1,2,3,4) - this is probably the most awkward to hit pattern of the mini-jumps in this section and imo it's actually because this is not "ugly" enough, Already fixed, i guess update lol
   there's a distinct sort of patterning with 00:30:624 (1,2,3,4) - and 00:34:046 (1,2,3,4) - that's just lost in the square here
3. 00:38:356 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - bro u butchered this so badly what the heck this fits WAY more as jumps instead of stacks I like this better,
   Discussed it with Kite who gave me the idea. Keeping it.
4. 00:40:812 (6,1) - would personally increase the spacing here, i keep overaiming this as it stands rn and it doesn't feel really that emphasized Increased it slightly.
5. 00:44:449 (2,3) - idk if this was the same in the previous iteration of the map but on the contrary this feels way TOO emphasized, placing it near 00:43:799 (3) Lowered it a bit.
   would be a lot better imo
6. 00:48:192 (3,4) - was better as one repeat slider since you keep consistency with 00:29:347 (5) - this section No, it needs to be two repeats to keep the intensityand consistency with 01:41:058 (1,2) -.
7. 00:49:949 (1,2,3,4) - what happen 2 the spacing here lol Nothing, that's intentional
8. 00:53:096 (2,3) - ^ Same, intentional.
9. 00:57:079 (5,6,1) - the new pattern in general is pretty cool but i'm not a huge fan of having an obtuse angle here, just personal preference tho xd Yea I want to keep cuz I like it.
10. 01:02:008 (5,6,7,8) - idk if you meant to change the spacing on these last two jumps but if you did then k hand: since it really doesn't affect anything I'll keep xp
11. 01:38:058 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5) - alright so this is basically the only problem i have with the entire map (plus the other section like this), while this is definitely an intense section of the song i feel representing this with 1/4 kicksliders especially at this high of a bpm and this awkward of an angle is ridiculous; it's a lot better to play with ar 10 now but it still just feels so out of place with the rest of the song, even just increasing the spacing of how far apart these are would make this so much easier to play imo since they feel so clustered together for no particular reason (obviously this goes for 02:26:362 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4) - these sections too but that's a lot more iffy of a solution) Definitely keeping the kicksliders, thats a given. I shifted the angles slightly and made the spacing more consistent from head to head.
12. 01:47:749 - you can be edgy here and add a note for the guitar xd No, theres not enough time for it as I've said xP.
13. 02:25:494 (1,2,3,4,5) - make this a star jump tbh, could be a lot more intense here than just a pentagon Fine, since many ppl want that.
14. 02:26:362 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4) - fuck this part No, keeping xP
15. 02:43:685 (1,2) - better as a vertical jump than a sideways jump imo

No, I prefer the sideways jump, it's a nice variation.

slow section i'm not gonna bother modding

it's not unplayable, idk why people say it is, just a few jumps flow awkwardly but I'm assuming that's the point of the map so it's not like it's surprising
the only main issue I have with the map is how awkward the 1/4 slider spam is to play which can be easily remedied with more spacing or changing the pattern
but yea those are my thoughts xd

Irreversible wrote:

@Kagetsu:
If you want to keep up your veto, then please proceed with properly argumenting why exactly this map is not playable -

Irreversible wrote:

simply stating something is not playable is not a reason why you can veto this map. The map has structure, is mapped to the song and makes sense, so simply saying it's not playable is definitely not enough.

Irreversible wrote:

the argument "it's unplayable" is REALLY weak.

Kagetsu wrote:

Irreversible wrote:

@Kagetsu:
If you want to keep up your veto, then please proceed with properly argumenting why exactly this map is not playable -

i've already pointed my reasons about why i think the playability of this map is flawed, stuff like seeing a lot of players playing the map, the ar being too low, unpredictable transitions that could be improved, exaggerated spacing considering how high the bpm is, etc.

Kagetsu wrote:

Irreversible wrote:

simply stating something is not playable is not a reason why you can veto this map. The map has structure, is mapped to the song and makes sense, so simply saying it's not playable is definitely not enough.

as far i know, i can veto any map, under objective or subjective issues. saying that its playability isn't the best might be subjective, but i've already stated my reasons. so i don't see why the veto would be invalid.

Kagetsu wrote:

Irreversible wrote:

the argument "it's unplayable" is REALLY weak.

i don't know what would make my argument or any other modder argument stronger. under that kind of reasoning i could say that "increasing spacing in order to emphasize sounds in the music" is a weak argument because you can't prove it actually emphasizes something. playability and "mapping theory" in general, is something agreed upon, and as such, i have the right to say this map playability is bad under the reasons stated before.
others nominators are free to overwrite my opinion by placing a bubble. isn't it how this system works?

Yes, you can veto, but your justification is extremely weak, if even existent. Read our discord log again, see how many times i asked you to provide any sort of "evidence" for why you think the map is unplayable. You keep dodging the question, or only using your own experience, never quoting anyone, or misquoting people. "I think the top score was made by someone with a touch pad" "I think Kynan said AR 10 was bad" (no he said AR 9.7). You can do better than this, surely

-Nishiki- wrote:

since it looks like you're serious about this i'll put a few of my thoughts in.
no need for kudosu if this is bad mod.

Stop! Stop Winny Upload!!

you might wanna rethink the samplesounds.
01:06:090 (1,1,1) - i think a few jumps here would work better than a spinner. Spinner works better. I want to use a spinner because people will still play spinners as a fast gameplay element. When you see a spinner, you move really fast, you don't sit idly by so the intensity is kept. I don't want to use streams because the timing is really messed up, and the section doesn't call for intense rhythm because they are preceded by slow sliders.
01:59:903 (2,3) - something like pictured below matches the gimmick of sv change in the map as well as unpredictability better than how it is now. (slider velocity for second slider is 1.4x) Well, first, there is no gimmick of SV change... and secondly this is a quiet section, I think its better to use predictable patterns. It's also not a really ugly section which is why you see some more visual patterning and aesthetics.

02:02:231 (1) - i think this should be a lengthened slider similar to 01:59:903 (2,2,2) before it. No, its a pause xP.
02:18:765 (1,2) - a more dramatic sv change to contrast to the short spacing of 02:18:402 (3,4,5) before it and 02:19:370 (3,4,5) after it would work better aesthetically in my opinion. I think it works just fine here. The idea is to make the downbeat a jump so players who try to alternate the short spaced stacks will be forced to do a really big jump here and that creates emphasis onto the sliderhead itself.
02:43:900 (1,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2) - since this section of the song is much more comprehensible than the parts before it,circular flow seems fairly beneficial to the music's tone.i'd go back and forth between both clockwise and counter clockwise circular flow. The flow used here already does that. It's perfectly fine imo, but you really have to consider slider leniency when looking at those sliders xP.
03:03:317 (3) - this should be extended to a white tick. No, cuz of vocals.
03:07:390 (1) - imo this should be a circle to match 03:05:329 (1) before it. They are both sliders tho xP. Also slider fits better.
03:11:415 (1) - it'd be a bit more fitting for this to be a heart or at least some slider art.i'd also recommend having the slider end at 03:14:868 rather than 03:13:946 . This is currently a slider art too, its a loop slider thats perfectly symmetrical.
04:45:311 (1) - ^ maybe not a heart because that'd kinda be redundant since this exists. It's more fitting to end with a heart though <3

otherwise pretty good map.matches the song well and play's fine if you're actually decent unlike me.don't understand the controversy.

1. 00:42:622 (1) - I would ctrl+G this slider. I would be more illustrative of the sudden fierceness upsurge in the vocals. And to be honest, it is more intuitive to play as it would be consistent with how the previous pattern is structured.
2. 01:36:344 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4) - I had some trouble understanding this pattern while testplaying the map. It sounded extremely off. I tried listening to the music more carefully and it is just as if the singer switched to 1/6 yet you used 1/4 triples. However it is not 1/6 but to me it sounds like there is a 3/8 distance between those notes (whhich is pretty representative of how chaotic this section is). Try changing your timeline to the screenshot below, it should fit the music better:
   
   SPOILER

   
3. 04:25:863 (2) - Do you really need this circle since you never map the 1/4 when the singer starts saying "stop stop"? Seems weird to me.

Kurai wrote:

Few things I noticed while testplaying the map:

1. 00:42:622 (1) - I would ctrl+G this slider. I would be more illustrative of the sudden fierceness upsurge in the vocals. And to be honest, it is more intuitive to play as it would be consistent with how the previous pattern is structured. DId it differently. I agree it could flow a bit better.
2. 01:36:344 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4) - I had some trouble understanding this pattern while testplaying the map. It sounded extremely off. I tried listening to the music more carefully and it is just as if the singer switched to 1/6 yet you used 1/4 triples. However it is not 1/6 but to me it sounds like there is a 3/8 distance between those notes (whhich is pretty representative of how chaotic this section is). Try changing your timeline to the screenshot below, it should fit the music better:
   
   SPOILER

   
   THe current rhythm is entirely based off 01:34:630 (1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5) - but denser to account for the vocal on blue tick. For example, if you just removed the circle on 01:36:505 (2) - etc.... it would be the same rhythm as earlier. I just upped the density since the song is denser. I suppose the only issue I had was 01:36:933 (6) - being a bit off for vocals, but I think players can still read this rhythm and understand it's effect.
3. 04:25:863 (2) - Do you really need this circle since you never map the 1/4 when the singer starts saying "stop stop"? Seems weird to me. There are drums being introduced in the bg, and the rhythm does become a bit more dense with those triplets and streams that I introduce.

MaridiuS wrote:

thing i noticed other than slider style:
firstly I think you could use socially acceptable sliders here 02:36:797 - to 02:43:900 - Since it has no vocals on sliders, and make em disgusting when there's the hey added. No, i disagree, I think this part still deserves ugly sliders. (made one of them uglier)Now rhythm for the sections is ughhh:
02:44:346 (2,3) - this is fine but 02:44:792 (2,3) - this make s me want to kill myself, compared to the previous one, there no kick on the red tick, and not hitsoundend, nor anything that sounds clickable to me, therefore I believe it should be a slider. 02:45:684 (2,3) - same for this 02:48:346 (2,3) - 02:49:231 (2,3) - tbh its an overmap. This rhythm is a lot more consistent and makes more sense. Using slider spam here makes the map way too simple imo.

Kurai wrote:

good luck big boy

Mini Gaunt wrote:

Kurai wrote:

good luck big boy

E n d wrote:

The only problem I have with A L I E N is the fact that half of the map is a 3* map lol...

I get that the song warrants it, but it doesn't seem right to have one half be 8 stars and the other be 3 I dunno

1. 00:25:056 (2,3,4) - Comparing with 00:21:847 (4,5) - 00:23:558 (3,4) - 00:26:981 (3,4) - , this was the only one with an overlap. What musical aspect made this decision?
2. 01:28:005 (1,2,3,4,5) - Similar question as above. While the overlaps being polished themselves, I couldn't found what lead to this overlap decision. Indeed throwing objects without overlaps in a row might be less interesting, but I consider this kind of decision to be a major composition difference while the music being similar.
3. 00:27:195 (4,1) -
4. 00:28:496 (3,4) -
5. 00:30:624 (1,4) -
6. 00:33:189 (1,2,3,4) -
7. 00:36:647 (1,3) -
8. 00:41:128 (3,5) -
9. 00:52:216 (2,1) -
10. 00:54:304 (1,4) -
11. 00:56:650 (2,4) - Above were the overlaps that I couldn't get the context of these decisions. As the way I've explained at the first overlap issue, the usage of the overlaps were differing by time to time. Some were having a perfect overlap, some are partially overlapped, and some aren't overlapped at all at similar parts of the song.

1. 00:17:766 - vs. 00:19:486 - A constant drum beat starts from 00:19:486 while the drum doesn't exist at 00:17:766. While the major musical progression is the similar, what do you think about giving some difference in expression based on the different instrument composition? The only difference expressed as a map was hitsounds here, but it quite feels weak imo. You can try differentiating the slider shapes, or flow choice etc to reflect the section without a drum in the song.
2. 00:25:697 (5) - I'm not really sure what made you to decide this slider stand out from others. The similar part of the song previously was expressed as 00:22:275 (6) - 00:23:986 (5) - which was relatively an ordinary shape. If the intention was to make this part being ugly progressively, I couldn't really found a musical reason for that progressive difference. The same idea applies to 01:28:862 (5). It was a good thing that you've managed to express your internal structure consistently, but I'm questionable about the structure decision at the first place.
3. 00:54:726 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - Other similar parts of these were expressed as zigzag jumps such as 00:51:250 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - 00:58:150 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - 01:01:580 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8). What musical difference has lead to such a different mapping concept?
4. 02:36:797 - vs. 02:44:123 - Just a personal thought but since the spacing concept of both section were similar, it made me feel the intensity of these two sections were the similar which gave a less emphasis on the finish hitsounds of the second section. Perfectly fine though if you've interpreted the intensity of both section the similar.

Sonnyc wrote:

I'm totally fine with the ugly shaped sliders. While not really polished enough, individual shapes are having a similar "concept" behind which reflects this genre of the song nice enough. Also I don't think the unbalanced difficulty of the map as something problematic since the song itself is unbalanced. Such mapping decision rather reflected the song in a nice way.

One point I'd like to question about is the overlaps. Overall, I can see some overlap concepts being used yet in an inconsistent manner imo. The appearance timing, or the overlap scale quite differed by time to time which felt questionable to form a technical concept as a map. Maybe it could get regarded as an "ugly" concept, but they varied way too much in my opinion. Few examples:

1. 00:25:056 (2,3,4) - Comparing with 00:21:847 (4,5) - 00:23:558 (3,4) - 00:26:981 (3,4) - , this was the only one with an overlap. What musical aspect made this decision? This flows perfectly fine. I'm just using regular pattern variation. 5 is different because of the vocals. Other than that,
   this is literally how I'd map normally because whats important is the flow and spacing.
2. 01:28:005 (1,2,3,4,5) - Similar question as above. While the overlaps being polished themselves, I couldn't found what lead to this overlap decision. Indeed throwing objects without overlaps in a row might be less interesting, but I consider this kind of decision to be a major composition difference while the music being similar. I can't give you a reason like "because there is something new in the mp3 that requires something different" nothing in the mp3 can suggest making a pattern overlap over not overlapping because they aren't compatible. You can't tell me X absolutely needs to be mapped as an overlap.
   I'm mapping it this way just becauser I want to, I have the freedom to do so no? It's just a variety of patterns. It's like you asking me why I decided to blanket 04:11:819 (2,3) - instead of using a linear pattern. I cannot give you any explanation other than "because I want to..." You don't offer me much to discuss...
3. 00:27:195 (4,1) - ^
4. 00:28:496 (3,4) -
5. 00:30:624 (1,4) -
6. 00:33:189 (1,2,3,4) -
7. 00:36:647 (1,3) -
8. 00:41:128 (3,5) -
9. 00:52:216 (2,1) -
10. 00:54:304 (1,4) -
11. 00:56:650 (2,4) - Above were the overlaps that I couldn't get the context of these decisions. As the way I've explained at the first overlap issue, the usage of the overlaps were differing by time to time. Some were having a perfect overlap, some are partially overlapped, and some aren't overlapped at all at similar parts of the song. The overlapping is simply an aesthetic choice of the map itself. I didn't use the overlap in order to convey that something was different musically, and I don't believe overlapping sliders creates this effect in any way.
    
    Anyways I'm just using a different pattern... I can't give you a reason for why I want to blanket a circle, It's just what I do. The same way, I can't tell you that X absolutely needs to be overlapped for some musical purposes because that's not the intention. The overlap is just there for variety of pattern. I use overlaps more often because they aren't aesthetically pleasing compared to regular hex grid patterns, so they fit my concept.

Also I'd like to mention some structure issues additionally.

1. 00:17:766 - vs. 00:19:486 - A constant drum beat starts from 00:19:486 while the drum doesn't exist at 00:17:766. While the major musical progression is the similar, what do you think about giving some difference in expression based on the different instrument composition? The only difference expressed as a map was hitsounds here, but it quite feels weak imo. You can try differentiating the slider shapes, or flow choice etc to reflect the section without a drum in the song. I don't think its necessary to do this at all. Just play it, it's fine and expresses the guitar. Just look at the snapping, even though there are indeed drums, the snapping is obviously to follow the guitar. I really hope this isn't your reason for veto'ing
2. 00:25:697 (5) - I'm not really sure what made you to decide this slider stand out from others. The similar part of the song previously was expressed as 00:22:275 (6) - 00:23:986 (5) - which was relatively an ordinary shape. If the intention was to make this part being ugly progressively, I couldn't really found a musical reason for that progressive difference. The same idea applies to 01:28:862 (5). It was a good thing that you've managed to express your internal structure consistently, but I'm questionable about the structure decision at the first place. The vocal is a lot harsher than the other ones,
   if you listen...
3. 00:54:726 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - Other similar parts of these were expressed as zigzag jumps such as 00:51:250 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - 00:58:150 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - 01:01:580 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8). What musical difference has lead to such a different mapping concept?
4. 02:36:797 - vs. 02:44:123 - Just a personal thought but since the spacing concept of both section were similar, it made me feel the intensity of these two sections were the similar which gave a less emphasis on the finish hitsounds of the second section. Perfectly fine though if you've interpreted the intensity of both section the similar. Pattern variety. You cannot tell me that this sound must be expressed through zigzag movements. There is no way to absolutely interpret that. And why can't i introduce a variety of movements and patterns for players?

Maybe I might have pointed out things that were already mentioned. Sorry then because the thread has gone way too huge to track every single post. What you pointed out has already been discussed very thoroughly, and it's a real pain for me to have to explain it for the 2039842034th time .

In common, I'm spotting major structure differences while the music being similar which made me feel this map lacking in quality. Vetoing over that for now since there might be concepts that I've overlooked.

Smokeman wrote:

some small things i noticed

00:23:986 (5) - You could make this a bit more jaged like 00:25:697 (5) - to be noticably different from the rest since its on that strong vocal ok
00:53:096 (2) - make this have a small qurick like 00:53:975 (2) - :> i think this one's fine already
01:35:165 (4) - Imo the quirck isnt very hitting since its under another slider body. You could make it a bit more noticeable sure why not lol https://puu.sh/wRU4v/5ec5f2b2e5.png
01:46:857 (1) - This could look a bit edgier aswell like these 01:42:526 (2) - 01:43:163 (2) - or like https://puu.sh/wRU4v/5ec5f2b2e5.png lol ok
01:48:020 (2) - put a barely noticeable quirck to slightly differentiate these two cause you almost never directly copy paste shapes like this.e.g. sure https://puu.sh/wRUcg/98a55494c8.png
02:02:231 (1) - did you really intend to have this note on 70%? I think the 70% was intended for these 02:02:564 (2,3,4,5) - which is fitting but you also put 70% on the timing point which makes that one note stand out all of a sudden :s yea fixed
02:12:585 (2) - Distort it's shape a bit to fit the objects surrounding it ? its the only "usual" slider shape in 02:10:385 - 02:25:922 - . Somethign liek this 02:24:820 (2) - shoudl do the trick : ) ok
02:33:171 (1) - Make this a bezier slider instead which comes close to be a circle but isnt. Like this you could emphasise the unsetteling vocals through a slightly off curve which would be unsetteling to look at aswell c: Eh, I think the slow SV does the trick. I kinda want these to look nicer again to juxtapose with the section before and after.
02:57:257 (1) - i think you messed up the colours a bit. This should probably be orange https://puu.sh/wRTDO/d6669c97af.png . (You would need to go over the whole second half and check the combocolouring :s) Yea i messed something up while deleting every object on the map that had already been modded. fixed this lol.
02:56:104 (1,2,1,1,1) - You also put the last jumps into "happy" colours aswell https://puu.sh/wRTGa/894efb48b2.png . Was this intended? cause i would say they are still in the crazy part of the song and should be in the darker/edgier colours. Making them ugly colors cuz i think it makes more sense to have the happy colors after. but fixed the colors still

this is a meme-free zone now

E n d wrote:

The only problem I have with A L I E N is the fact that half of the map is a 3* map lol...

I get that the song warrants it, but it doesn't seem right to have one half be 8 stars and the other be 3 I dunno

Athrun wrote:

E n d wrote:

The only problem I have with A L I E N is the fact that half of the map is a 3* map lol...

I get that the song warrants it, but it doesn't seem right to have one half be 8 stars and the other be 3 I dunno

Teach me how to make a slow interlude 8*

:thinking:

1. 02:44:123 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - The anti-clockwise flow changed to a clockwise flow at 02:45:349 (3,1), the forth (1). and at 02:47:677 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3), such flow change happens at 02:48:456 (3,1) which is the third (1). Why? What lead to this kind of a difference? Was there a musical difference to support this variation? or any mapping reason that lead to this variation?
2. 03:15:390 (1,2) - 03:19:409 (1,2) - 03:23:442 (1,2) - etc- Mappings of the "stop stop" part. I can understand the decision to avoid things being way too repetitive if these are the only 1/2 sliders happening in a row. But as you can see at the part without "stop stop" vocals, 03:17:398 (1,2) - 03:21:425 (1,2) - 03:25:478 (1,2) - you've also expressed these parts of the song as two 1/2 sliders. Since you've decided a variation each vocal part, I can not question why some are parallels while some are 120 degree rotation blankets. Yet, I'm questioning the decision of a variation itself. Since every two 1/2 sliders differ all the time, they didn't really turned out as a recognizable pattern even the spacing concepts were commonly applied. There's no difference between "stop stop" 1/2 sliders vs. non-"stop stop" 1/2 sliders. There's no similarity between each "stop stop" 1/2 sliders or between each non-"stop stop" 1/2 sliders. Indeed they are similar in song, but also not exactly the same.

Sonnyc wrote:

00:54:726 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - I couldn't really agree your explanation about the pattern variety here. This pattern was a mixture of a squares and a similar pattern usage also appears at 02:55:471 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) where the music is slightly different. Applying a similar idea at different parts of the music felt to be lacking in structure. That was why I questioned this pattern not being a zigzag. If you wanted this as a variation, then what was the reason of it? Those are entirely different in terms of context. You sould be comparing that timestamp to 00:51:250 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - . Listen to how similar it is to 00:54:726 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - . I used zigzag for the first one, then rotational for the second one. That's the variety. Now listen to 00:55:579 - and listen to 00:59:022 - . They are the same stanza repeated twice. So you have patterning 1, 1, 2, 2. But here you're trying to compare 1 with 3, a jump sequence that doesn't even have the same rhythmic context. It's like trying to say "why is 02:57:257 (1) - not the same as 04:39:787 (1) - ?" Well, obviously they aren't the same because they aren't even part of the same rhythm structure. The first time stamp isn't related to the second in terms of stanzas, it just shares a similar flow but the context is completely different.

I understand pattern varieties to create more interesting stuff, but I also believe that those varieties should have a reasoning behind its existence at the first place. Rather it being from the song, or from the map itself. Pattern variety doesn't just happen without any reason. Mapping logics, you know. For example, you've consistently expressed the shoutings of the song as zigzag slider flows at 01:38:058 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - 01:39:772 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - 02:26:362 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - 02:28:028 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - 02:29:742 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - 02:31:456 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - . While the visual aspects all differed, they had a consistent concept at similar parts of the song which created a structure. Such similar concept wasn't applied at different parts of the song. If one of those suddenly had a rotation concept applied while having no reason to back up, calling it a variety would be less logical.

There is a lot of reasoning going in. The first two stanzas, I used variety of flow movement, linear to rotational. It makes sense because that stanza is only repeated once. If you consider them as one pairing, then you can see that. The second stanza beginning at 00:55:579 - follows a different method of variety. Instead of switching flows, i'm using spacing increase, movement, and orientation. 00:58:150 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - Is down, ending up, zigzagging to the left of the screen. 01:01:580 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - is larger spacing, and zigzagging to the right.

Comparing 00:51:250 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - to 00:58:150 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - isn't fair because they aren't the same stanza. They happen to be similar in flow (though the first is an upward zigzag movement that shifts angles noticeably too) but you really shouldn't consider them as having to be consistent. Listen to the measure befor,e especially with the vocals, it should already show that they are not similar.

Some fragmentary examples again:

1. 02:44:123 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - The anti-clockwise flow changed to a clockwise flow at 02:45:349 (3,1), the forth (1). and at 02:47:677 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3), such flow change happens at 02:48:456 (3,1) which is the third (1). Why? What lead to this kind of a difference? Was there a musical difference to support this variation? or any mapping reason that lead to this variation? No, there was not. And there shouldn't need to be in order to justify every change in flow. Are you going to say stuff like : 03:26:728 (4,5,1,2,3,4,5) - require some musical difference to support flow changes too? Because this is what I've literally done for all my ranked maps so far. Pattern variety, and flow shifts are not always mapped to the song, but are simply self-contained. Managing flow to that extent is completely unreasonable, because it absolutely restricts mapping way too much. My style is already very restrictive in terms of object placement, it doesn't need to be clouded by some necessity to map every flow shift to something significant in the song. I'm disagreeing with your point because I do it all the time, and I don't believe flow shifts necessarily have to map to something in the song. I don't believe this point improves the map, or any of my maps because I wouldn't have applied it on normal songs either. You are really analyzing too far in. You can say the same about how some of the angles I use on the map don't correspond to the song either. Like how some I use a sharp angle for some patterns, and a wider angle on another. I can't give you a reason because there doesn't need to be a reason for literally every minute change.
2. 03:15:390 (1,2) - 03:19:409 (1,2) - 03:23:442 (1,2) - etc- Mappings of the "stop stop" part. I can understand the decision to avoid things being way too repetitive if these are the only 1/2 sliders happening in a row. But as you can see at the part without "stop stop" vocals, 03:17:398 (1,2) - 03:21:425 (1,2) - 03:25:478 (1,2) - you've also expressed these parts of the song as two 1/2 sliders. Since you've decided a variation each vocal part, I can not question why some are parallels while some are 120 degree rotation blankets. Yet, I'm questioning the decision of a variation itself. Since every two 1/2 sliders differ all the time, they didn't really turned out as a recognizable pattern even the spacing concepts were commonly applied. There's no difference between "stop stop" 1/2 sliders vs. non-"stop stop" 1/2 sliders. There's no similarity between each "stop stop" 1/2 sliders or between each non-"stop stop" 1/2 sliders. Indeed they are similar in song, but also not exactly the same. But that's just rhythm? I don't have to make a distinction because they are just the same rhythms... Just because its a vocal doesn't mean I absolutely need to map it differently to the non vocal part, especially considering they are still the same rhythm that only emphasize the white tick, and thus need a 1/2 slider rhythm. Are you saying all vocal sections should use linear sliders and non-vocals should use curved? Because if so that's just completely ridiculous and hinders the map's design unnecessarily. Not to mention thats just digging way too deep into trying to find some inconsistencies in expression.

While the stop stop winny upload part was at least in a technically organized manner by spacing or visual concepts, the overall structure issue I'm feeling is the same as the metal part. The map itself is not really that bad. It introduces interesting mapping concepts for this kind of a song. Just that I don't think it's the top quality material.

Reflecting the song as a map is what I regard as "structures" which I consider highly important. It seems you've interpreted this song to be unique all the time, but it's not like the song being different all the time every new stanza. Some parts majorly differ, while some parts are showing a similar musical flow.

Major composition differences were being made as section differs, but composition similarities in similar parts of the song were rather weak. Without a supporting logic behind, different patterns are just being different each instead of forming a variation. I'd like you to think more than "why not?" when deciding variations for your future mappings.

I'm keeping my veto. Other BNs might feel this map valuable enough so maybe you can ask them.