Ekoro wrote:

seriously

EphemeralFetish wrote:

Not gonna lie I dont see why Ekoro maps shouldnt be ranked, nothing fundamentally wrong with them.

1. 04:40:347 (9,1) - Nothing here calls for such a sharp and massive jump following up with a 180 transition into the stream
   06:12:124 (2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5) - None of this 1/4 is really emphasizing to anything; from what I can tell maybe you were just simplifying the mess of guitar snaps, but I think there are better options. You could just use repeats for 1/3 or 1/6 rhythms while still keeping the 1/4 as circles, even vice versa w/e
2. 06:14:236 (1,2,3,1,2,3,4) -
3. 02:38:064 (1,2,3,4) - The first 3 circles of this pattern start out super snappy, then switches to a random wide angle on 4... which is the highest pitched guitar note out of these. This could fit the guitar intensity more while still keeping the overall shape.
4. 01:44:064 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - These angles have the same problem as above. The overall spacing makes sense, but here it's barely significant when the movement is underwhelming. The triangles are sharp individually, but each shift between them is wide angled.
5. 02:58:057 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - aaa same as above
6. 02:54:279 (2,3,1,2,1,2,1) - What's with the grouping and NCing of these circles? I don't hear any pitch changes in the guitar up until 02:55:057 (2), and as for percussion, you're actually placing more emphasis on the less intense kicks over the snares.
7. 06:18:124 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - I don't see any musical reason behind the large differences in spacing for the two groups of 4. The only note that stands out to me is 06:18:124 (1), but everything else is relatively within the same pitch range.
8. 06:19:902 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - Same thing here; 06:20:347 (1) - should have the largest jump, but instead you have 06:20:124 (3,4) - and 06:20:569 (3,4) - which are more spaced despite being lower intensity.
9. 06:28:680 (4,1) - Another random jump... Actually the entirety of 06:27:902 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1) - is just weird. 06:28:236 (4) - 06:28:569 (3) - 06:28:902 (2) - are guitar notes that stand out, but none of them are emphasized since they're all consistent in spacing and all wide angled. Especially 06:29:680 (1) - which has a crash.
10. 06:30:124 (3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4) - So the jump between the two groups is good, but 06:30:569 (1,2,3,4) - uses the same DS as 06:30:124 (3,4,5,6) - which is lower in pitch asdjklgasdl
11. 06:31:458 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - This isn't necessarily a problem, but seriously, you could do something at least a little more interesting than this. There are some guitar rhythms you can take advantage of like the 1/2 at 06:32:124 - 06:33:458 - etc. It doesn't even have to be the guitar really. Using circles before the crashes at 06:33:236 (1) - and 06:35:013 (1) - would be much more impactful than just slider spam.
12. 06:42:124 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - oh god this is literally a combination of all the spacing/angle problems I've mentioned so far. 06:42:124 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - Starts out zig zagging and then uses a wide angled transition in between the 2 groups. Then 06:43:013 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - here it just completely drops the sharp angles and uses the same ds despite the build up in pitch. 06:43:902 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - So much variation in spacing with no intensity changes.

sukiNathan wrote:

1. 04:40:347 (9,1) - Nothing here calls for such a sharp and massive jump following up with a 180 transition into the stream - Rare case in the song where the snares are stonger on certain spots at the end (Slider heads, last circle) And the long snare roll I is the only one thats that long and powerful in these sections so its justifiable being that hard compared to the rest.
   06:12:124 (2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5) - None of this 1/4 is really emphasizing to anything; from what I can tell maybe you were just simplifying the mess of guitar snaps, but I think there are better options. You could just use repeats for 1/3 or 1/6 rhythms while still keeping the 1/4 as circles, even vice versa w/e - Discussed with a few people, agree'd to map as 1/4. Random mess of 1/4 1/3 and just plain random notes that dont fit anywhere. "Overmapping" for pure 1/4 to cover shitty guitar playing actually makes it much easier and simple to play, as opposed to a bunch of nonsensical mess that I doubt anyone would like to be playing.
2. 06:14:236 (1,2,3,1,2,3,4) -
3. 02:38:064 (1,2,3,4) - The first 3 circles of this pattern start out super snappy, then switches to a random wide angle on 4... which is the highest pitched guitar note out of these. - [/color]This could fit the guitar intensity more while still keeping the overall shape. I honestly dont know how to explain this because I literally do not see an issue what so ever. 1 2 3 are basic snaps and the 4 clearly has the most emphasis which is needed, so yeah. This in itself is just another regular pattern anyways, you still have to snap to the 4 as well.
4. 01:44:064 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - These angles have the same problem as above. The overall spacing makes sense, but here it's barely significant when the movement is underwhelming. The triangles are sharp individually, but each shift between them is wide angled. - No emphasis needed aside from the 3 > 1 which I have, so again no issue for me. Playing these you actually move smoothly from 1 > 3 rather than snapping which is intended, the same as the previous time this part came up.
5. 02:58:057 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - aaa same as above - This is a totally differet case seeing as its sliders, I wouldnt wanna make players snap for these aside from each 3 > 1, and its uneeded.
6. 02:54:279 (2,3,1,2,1,2,1) - What's with the grouping and NCing of these circles? I don't hear any pitch changes in the guitar up until 02:55:057 (2), and as for percussion, you're actually placing more emphasis on the less intense kicks over the snares. - For guitar and its doubles so it fits. Emphasis on drums matters not since guitar is arguable the stronger instrument here. Plus this song is a mess and a lot of the time instruments dont match up like they do in 99% of other songs
7. 06:18:124 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - I don't see any musical reason behind the large differences in spacing for the two groups of 4. The only note that stands out to me is 06:18:124 (1), but everything else is relatively within the same pitch range. - Since the 1 is stronger and indicates a new pattern I figured having the second be spaced more made sense, it works as a nice build up as well, the spacing doesnt really matter since the intensity isnt that noticeable. Everything just feels difficult throughout.
8. 06:19:902 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - Same thing here; 06:20:347 (1) - should have the largest jump, but instead you have 06:20:124 (3,4) - and 06:20:569 (3,4) - which are more spaced despite being lower intensity. - Spacing isnt everything when it comes to intensity, aside from these being the exact same, the change in direction on 06:20:347 (1) - Helps add extra emphasis, rather than just replying on spacing.
9. 06:28:680 (4,1) - Another random jump... Actually the entirety of 06:27:902 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1) - is just weird. 06:28:236 (4) - 06:28:569 (3) - 06:28:902 (2) - are guitar notes that stand out, but none of them are emphasized since they're all consistent in spacing and all wide angled. Especially 06:29:680 (1) - which has a crash. 06:28:347 (1) - Not strong enough to need a jump, tighter turn is fine enough. 06:28:791 (1,1) - These 2 are clearly much stronger than all the others so are the only ones that deserve jumps, the rest you pointed out are just blended in with the basic huitar line, they do not have enough power, or dare I say any at all to warrent emphasis on them.
10. 06:30:124 (3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4) - So the jump between the two groups is good, but 06:30:569 (1,2,3,4) - uses the same DS as 06:30:124 (3,4,5,6) - which is lower in pitch asdjklgasdl - 06:30:124 (3,4,5,6) - Climbs down in pitch while 06:30:569 (1,2,3,4) - Rises, so they're the same basic concept. Having the same DS is fine. They arent 2 clearly different pitches, but on average they are the same.
11. 06:31:458 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - This isn't necessarily a problem, but seriously, you could do something at least a little more interesting than this. There are some guitar rhythms you can take advantage of like the 1/2 at 06:32:124 - 06:33:458 - etc. It doesn't even have to be the guitar really. Using circles before the crashes at 06:33:236 (1) - and 06:35:013 (1) - would be much more impactful than just slider spam. - Guitar is pretty slow and takes away from the intensity, I did have some longer sliders before but pretty much everyone suggested I take them out.
12. 06:42:124 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - oh god this is literally a combination of all the spacing/angle problems I've mentioned so far. 06:42:124 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - Starts out zig zagging and then uses a wide angled transition in between the 2 groups. Then 06:43:013 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - here it just completely drops the sharp angles and uses the same ds despite the build up in pitch. 06:43:902 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - So much variation in spacing with no intensity changes. - 06:30:569 (1,2,3,4) - Wide angle because 06:42:569 (1) - is strong enough to warrant that. 06:43:013 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - The rise in pitch is cleaner here than before, hence why its curved and not zigzag like before, no DS need because as I explained before, climbing in pitch on the first 4 and lowering on the second 4. Only the 1's need emphasis. 06:43:013 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - Jumps start sharp and large at the pitch height, and get less intense to match it lowering.

sukiNathan wrote:

1. 04:40:347 (9,1) - Nothing here calls for such a sharp and massive jump following up with a 180 transition into the stream This is a transition measure. The spacing is large, but this is also the one time this particular measure (which is used other times, at 04:05:013 - , 04:33:680 - , 06:09:458 - , there are others) is actually only 1/2 away from a drum beat. Unlike most metal tracks, this one has a nice amount of variance so the similarities are muted, but I'm sure you're aware as a mapper of how freely spacing can be abused during transitional phases.
2. 06:12:124 (2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5) - None of this 1/4 is really emphasizing to anything; from what I can tell maybe you were just simplifying the mess of guitar snaps, but I think there are better options. You could just use repeats for 1/3 or 1/6 rhythms while still keeping the 1/4 as circles, even vice versa w/e This is not the first time that random guitar wailing has been mapped with a set of steams, nor will it be the last. I'm confused as to why you find this objectionable when it's a technique commonly used.
3. 02:38:064 (1,2,3,4) - The first 3 circles of this pattern start out super snappy, then switches to a random wide angle on 4... which is the highest pitched guitar note out of these. This could fit the guitar intensity more while still keeping the overall shape. This is pure preference.
4. 01:44:064 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - These angles have the same problem as above. The overall spacing makes sense, but here it's barely significant when the movement is underwhelming. The triangles are sharp individually, but each shift between them is wide angled. Again, pure preference. He probably feels that the individuality of each set of threes is more significant than the entire whole.
5. 02:58:057 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - aaa same as above boop
6. 02:54:279 (2,3,1,2,1,2,1) - What's with the grouping and NCing of these circles? I don't hear any pitch changes in the guitar up until 02:55:057 (2), and as for percussion, you're actually placing more emphasis on the less intense kicks over the snares. You can't hear changes in pitch, but you can't tell that they're cascading pairs? Like, this is actually some really skilled emphasis that's looking at the music as a whole, rather than data points.
7. 06:18:124 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - I don't see any musical reason behind the large differences in spacing for the two groups of 4. The only note that stands out to me is 06:18:124 (1), but everything else is relatively within the same pitch range. This is inane as hell. People do crazier shit during plain 1/2 spam sections all the damn time. You've done it as well. The spacing is not so incredibly large that they count as taxing jumps for the theoretical player.
8. 06:19:902 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - Same thing here; 06:20:347 (1) - should have the largest jump, but instead you have 06:20:124 (3,4) - and 06:20:569 (3,4) - which are more spaced despite being lower intensity. This is purely based around distance snap, which is a shitty metric. The entire section is just largely spaced, inane details such as the exact distance is only discernable when you're sitting in the editor armchair. The player does not notice these changes, and musically they are following a consistent rhythm and pattern structure.
9. 06:28:680 (4,1) - Another random jump... Actually the entirety of 06:27:902 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1) - is just weird. 06:28:236 (4) - 06:28:569 (3) - 06:28:902 (2) - are guitar notes that stand out, but none of them are emphasized since they're all consistent in spacing and all wide angled. Especially 06:29:680 (1) - which has a crash. I'm really not seeing your point here. Just by listening to it once, I can tell that the first four beats lead into the second set, while the third and fourth sets are independent copies of the first original four. And this combo setup is very efficient at representing that. Again, you're looking at the raw pitch and sound so hard you're losing sight of the relationships between the beats.
10. 06:30:124 (3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4) - So the jump between the two groups is good, but 06:30:569 (1,2,3,4) - uses the same DS as 06:30:124 (3,4,5,6) - which is lower in pitch asdjklgasdl Honestly, this is just the same thing over and over again. If anything, I find 06:31:013 (1,2,3,4) - to be the most disconcerting of this section because of how it's not aligned with its own structure that well and the jump of 3->4 is overkill for emphasis there. But it's not that bad.
11. 06:31:458 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - This isn't necessarily a problem, but seriously, you could do something at least a little more interesting than this. There are some guitar rhythms you can take advantage of like the 1/2 at 06:32:124 - 06:33:458 - etc. It doesn't even have to be the guitar really. Using circles before the crashes at 06:33:236 (1) - and 06:35:013 (1) - would be much more impactful than just slider spam. Honestly the music gets pretty boring here too and having a bit of a breather is probably a good idea. It goes back into more dense patterns later on as the music picks back up. My only suggestion here would be to disable kiai for a bit near the middle, but that's personal preference speaking - the music slowly loses energy and slowly regains it, making the harsh cutoff of "kiai on, kiai off" probably disconcerting.
12. 06:42:124 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - oh god this is literally a combination of all the spacing/angle problems I've mentioned so far. 06:42:124 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - Starts out zig zagging and then uses a wide angled transition in between the 2 groups. Then 06:43:013 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - here it just completely drops the sharp angles and uses the same ds despite the build up in pitch. 06:43:902 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - So much variation in spacing with no intensity changes. This is a direct, higher-spacing, higher-energy "copy" (I use quotes because it's not a direct copy, but a similar-use one) of an earlier combo - and because this chorus takes that same musical pattern and continues it, getting even more ramped up, the mapping reflects this. If there's any point at which the spacing should deservedly "go nuts", it's here. And also, fuck the bit about sharp angles. Tablets don't give a shit about sharp angles, people who complain that they're hard to play should just get better or go back to their comfortable pp maps.

Shiirn wrote:

Considering how inane these are, I figured I'd step in real fast and say a few words.
I am not in any way speaking for Fetish, nor am I decidedly defending him because "oh they're friends".
My friends can attest that if I think they're doing something dumb, I'll tell them they're doing something dumb.

sukiNathan wrote:

1. 04:40:347 (9,1) - Nothing here calls for such a sharp and massive jump following up with a 180 transition into the stream This is a transition measure. The spacing is large, but this is also the one time this particular measure (which is used other times, at 04:05:013 - , 04:33:680 - , 06:09:458 - , there are others) is actually only 1/2 away from a drum beat. Unlike most metal tracks, this one has a nice amount of variance so the similarities are muted, but I'm sure you're aware as a mapper of how freely spacing can be abused during transitional phases. I don't see how this being a transitional phrase qualifies this pattern. It's a large jump, but i think the spacing is alright, like you say. Spacing can be abused during transitional phases as it's one of the best opportunities for extra-large spacings. The problem here is the 180 degree turn you have to make jumping from 9>1 and then playing the spaced stream. Your argument suggests that spatially the pattern is fine, which I don't disagree with. However, the angle change is the crux of the issue imo.
2. 06:12:124 (2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5) - None of this 1/4 is really emphasizing to anything; from what I can tell maybe you were just simplifying the mess of guitar snaps, but I think there are better options. You could just use repeats for 1/3 or 1/6 rhythms while still keeping the 1/4 as circles, even vice versa w/e This is not the first time that random guitar wailing has been mapped with a set of steams, nor will it be the last. I'm confused as to why you find this objectionable when it's a technique commonly used.Overmapping to cover up messy snappings is a poor choice. Did other mappers suggest overmapping to cover up the clear snapping issues and messy guitar wailing? Or was this a solution thought up by the mapper? In either case, this is not a good design choice imo. It's better to simplify rhythm and imo, repeats like sukiNathan said, are a good alternative. You can see that the mapper employs them elsewhere too: 06:14:569 (1,2,3,4) - so using repeats will still fit the section well.
3. 06:18:124 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - I don't see any musical reason behind the large differences in spacing for the two groups of 4. The only note that stands out to me is 06:18:124 (1), but everything else is relatively within the same pitch range. This is inane as hell. People do crazier shit during plain 1/2 spam sections all the damn time. You've done it as well. The spacing is not so incredibly large that they count as taxing jumps for the theoretical player. Doesn't answer the complaint... Spacing doesn't have to reflect the section musically, but justification helps.
4. 06:19:902 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - Same thing here; 06:20:347 (1) - should have the largest jump, but instead you have 06:20:124 (3,4) - and 06:20:569 (3,4) - which are more spaced despite being lower intensity. This is purely based around distance snap, which is a shitty metric. The entire section is just largely spaced, inane details such as the exact distance is only discernable when you're sitting in the editor armchair. The player does not notice these changes, and musically they are following a consistent rhythm and pattern structure. Players don't notice these changes? Really...
5. 06:42:124 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - oh god this is literally a combination of all the spacing/angle problems I've mentioned so far. 06:42:124 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - Starts out zig zagging and then uses a wide angled transition in between the 2 groups. Then 06:43:013 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - here it just completely drops the sharp angles and uses the same ds despite the build up in pitch. 06:43:902 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - So much variation in spacing with no intensity changes. This is a direct, higher-spacing, higher-energy "copy" (I use quotes because it's not a direct copy, but a similar-use one) of an earlier combo - and because this chorus takes that same musical pattern and continues it, getting even more ramped up, the mapping reflects this. If there's any point at which the spacing should deservedly "go nuts", it's here. And also, fuck the bit about sharp angles. Tablets don't give a shit about sharp angles, people who complain that they're hard to play should just get better or go back to their comfortable pp maps.Wat. The angles here are really poorly done. It being a copy of something earlier doesn't qualify it being there. It's not so much the spacing thats the problem, its the angles. Large spacings can play very well with the right angles, but with the wrong angles, even small spacings can be uncomfortable to play.

Again, people tend to only look at maps based off their own viewpoints. I'm aware that sukiNathan's generation was the "editor armchair" mapper generation, so I'm trying to explain how some of the concepts that were prescribed as holy back then, actually aren't that vital or even, blasphemously, matter all that much to the player or as a representation of the music. Such as absurd consistency and references to music as data points as opposed to a crafted story. It's like looking at a single sentence of a book at a time. You're never getting the whole picture, and when you make every sentence the same length and consistency, your story's going to be fucking boring and a pain to read.

I'm aware technically speaking that I'm also "only looking at the map from my viewpoint", but I'm not telling fetish to actually change anything that I may suggest because any faults I found in this map came down to what I could recognize as personal preference, and not actually map-destroying errors. The map stays consistent with its theme even if you disagree with that theme. I recently modded quaver and specifically avoided the whole "crescendo" theme commentary specifically because I hated that concept because it spat on the music in my opinion, but kept my tongue and went over other pieces whilst explaining why I felt that theme was patently unrankable (ref: the way it spat on the music).

If you'd like to sit down and explain to everyone why you think Empress' theme should be patently unrankable, feel free - I'd love to hear more about your mapping views and what you consider important to having a good map. Because this doesn't spit on the music at all. It's quite accurate in representing metal at this high velocity.

I don't want to get too deep into the details of my personal preferences towards mapping (too late probably), but anyway, that's enough lol

EphemeralFetish wrote:

JK Ill check now.

sukiNathan wrote:

1. 04:40:347 (9,1) - Nothing here calls for such a sharp and massive jump following up with a 180 transition into the stream - Rare case in the song where the snares are stonger on certain spots at the end (Slider heads, last circle) And the long snare roll I is the only one thats that long and powerful in these sections so its justifiable being that hard compared to the rest. Hmm. I can agree to that.
   06:12:124 (2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5) - None of this 1/4 is really emphasizing to anything; from what I can tell maybe you were just simplifying the mess of guitar snaps, but I think there are better options. You could just use repeats for 1/3 or 1/6 rhythms while still keeping the 1/4 as circles, even vice versa w/e - Discussed with a few people, agree'd to map as 1/4. Random mess of 1/4 1/3 and just plain random notes that dont fit anywhere. "Overmapping" for pure 1/4 to cover shitty guitar playing actually makes it much easier and simple to play, as opposed to a bunch of nonsensical mess that I doubt anyone would like to be playing. This is not a good mapping decision imo... People are bringing it up now so more discussion can clearly be done, with more experienced mappers now that the map is qualified. I also disagree with overmapping for 1/4's. You've clearly mapped other sections to repeating sliders, so the option of using less technically demanding rhythms and patterns is definitely there.
2. 06:14:236 (1,2,3,1,2,3,4) -
3. 02:38:064 (1,2,3,4) - The first 3 circles of this pattern start out super snappy, then switches to a random wide angle on 4... which is the highest pitched guitar note out of these. - [/color]This could fit the guitar intensity more while still keeping the overall shape. I honestly dont know how to explain this because I literally do not see an issue what so ever. 1 2 3 are basic snaps and the 4 clearly has the most emphasis which is needed, so yeah. This in itself is just another regular pattern anyways, you still have to snap to the 4 as well. The reason using a "snappy" angle is better is because a clear angle shift allows for more impact since there's a greater change in momentum. Since there's a really wide angle from 2>3>4 you don't get the impact you want onto 4. Also, the angle relative to the pattern feels really odd as sukiNathan pointed out. I can't open sukinathan's link for some reason, but something like this would fit your pattern and create a better angle: http://puu.sh/rdMPH.jpg
4. 01:44:064 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - These angles have the same problem as above. The overall spacing makes sense, but here it's barely significant when the movement is underwhelming. The triangles are sharp individually, but each shift between them is wide angled. - No emphasis needed aside from the 3 > 1 which I have, so again no issue for me. Playing these you actually move smoothly from 1 > 3 rather than snapping which is intended, the same as the previous time this part came up.I see your point about moving smoothly actually. It can work, but I don't think it does, because of how you've mapped the rest of the section. Let me explain. It will definitely play smoothly if you were to alternate this. If i were mapping an alternator style map, this pattern would play really well and have great flow. But you've set up these 1/3 snaps such that they should be single-tapped as evidenced by basically the first half of the map. With that in mind, players will more likely single-tap this, and when you single-tap you lose that flow because you are obligated to snap to each note, like the other 1/3's, or change your playstyle specifically for these triangles. I think changing playstyle is possible too, but in that respect, I don't think there's enough testing done to reliably say what is what, well, going from your vague reply anyways.
5. 02:58:057 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - aaa same as above - This is a totally differet case seeing as its sliders, I wouldnt wanna make players snap for these aside from each 3 > 1, and its uneeded. This is exactly the same though... They are sliders, but you are going to play them like they are circles, and as a result, the angles are going to be very similar. The caveat of course, is that kicksliders tend to allow more angle leniency to them, but it still doesn't seem like this has been tested enough, well, looking at your reply anyways.
6. 06:18:124 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - I don't see any musical reason behind the large differences in spacing for the two groups of 4. The only note that stands out to me is 06:18:124 (1), but everything else is relatively within the same pitch range. - Since the 1 is stronger and indicates a new pattern I figured having the second be spaced more made sense, it works as a nice build up as well, the spacing doesnt really matter since the intensity isnt that noticeable. Everything just feels difficult throughout.Players can still notice these spacings though... And this one in particular, has a very noticeable visual pattern. People can recognize patterns very easily, so here, your argument that "everything feels difficult" doesn't justify the change. Some parts are more difficult, and both the spacing, and the visual pattern itself suggest that. Following the next point though:
7. 06:19:902 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - Same thing here; 06:20:347 (1) - should have the largest jump, but instead you have 06:20:124 (3,4) - and 06:20:569 (3,4) - which are more spaced despite being lower intensity. - Spacing isnt everything when it comes to intensity, aside from these being the exact same, the change in direction on 06:20:347 (1) - Helps add extra emphasis, rather than just replying on spacing. The pattern is less recognizable (small square > big square, anyone will see that) but here, its just zigzags with no real structure (sadly) which ends up making it more justifiable haha. I'm okay with reasoning here.
8. 06:28:680 (4,1) - Another random jump... Actually the entirety of 06:27:902 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1) - is just weird. 06:28:236 (4) - 06:28:569 (3) - 06:28:902 (2) - are guitar notes that stand out, but none of them are emphasized since they're all consistent in spacing and all wide angled. Especially 06:29:680 (1) - which has a crash. 06:28:347 (1) - Not strong enough to need a jump, tighter turn is fine enough. 06:28:791 (1,1) - These 2 are clearly much stronger than all the others so are the only ones that deserve jumps, the rest you pointed out are just blended in with the basic huitar line, they do not have enough power, or dare I say any at all to warrent emphasis on them. Reasoning is okay here, but why don't you put a jump on 06:29:569 (4,1) - then? following your logic of where you place these jumps.
9. 06:42:124 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - oh god this is literally a combination of all the spacing/angle problems I've mentioned so far. 06:42:124 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - Starts out zig zagging and then uses a wide angled transition in between the 2 groups. Then 06:43:013 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - here it just completely drops the sharp angles and uses the same ds despite the build up in pitch. 06:43:902 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - So much variation in spacing with no intensity changes. - 06:30:569 (1,2,3,4) - Wide angle because 06:42:569 (1) - is strong enough to warrant that. 06:43:013 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - The rise in pitch is cleaner here than before, hence why its curved and not zigzag like before, no DS need because as I explained before, climbing in pitch on the first 4 and lowering on the second 4. Only the 1's need emphasis. 06:43:013 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - Jumps start sharp and large at the pitch height, and get less intense to match it lowering. If you're talking about rising pitch, then making 06:42:902 (4,1) - bigger than 06:43:347 (4,1) - is counterintuitive to your rising-pitch concept. Emphasis is very relative. Relative to other jumps, a spacing that is small, can still be the focus of emphasis. Also, I agree with sukiNathan that the obtuse angles you use just make for really uncomfortable movements and snaps. You are expecting players to single tap these .

.

Cryptic wrote:

05:03:180 (12,13) - Aren't these off the playfield?
EDIT: To clarify, I don't mean offscreen but rather off editor-field.

EphemeralFetish wrote:

Cryptic wrote:

05:03:180 (12,13) - Aren't these off the playfield?
EDIT: To clarify, I don't mean offscreen but rather off editor-field.

My eye sight is not so good so I cant tell, but its possible since I recall making this stream with slider convert.

EphemeralFetish wrote:

Cryptic wrote:

05:03:180 (12,13) - Aren't these off the playfield?
EDIT: To clarify, I don't mean offscreen but rather off editor-field.

My eye sight is not so good so I cant tell, but its possible since I recall making this stream with slider convert.

Pelzio wrote:

i'm starting to think getting an 8* ranked is literally impossible now, because everyone will shit on it as soon as it's qualified despite it being near perfection

Yuii- wrote:

Ranking really difficult sets is hard just because there's more room (or more likely to be) for mistakes. We should all be opened for criticism, though!

Spaghetti wrote:

Ok, I know I participated in the ranking process of this map, but after taking a look at some of the concerns that have been brought up, I've had a change of mind concerning the quality of this map and whether it should be inducted in the ranking section.

I also looked back and found some points of my own.

00:10:731 (1) - Starting a map with a stream is very off-putting to many players as there is no reference point for the rhythm/bpm. It could pass if the blank intro provides a feel for the song, but this one doesn't. - Really picky. "Ohh starts with a stream, Ill take 5 seconds and restart now I know."
00:16:731 (1,2,3,4) - even though there's a downshift in pitch you choose to up the spacing tremendously, and that doesn't make much sense to me. - Pitch shifts up, which to me = more intense. And its just basic patterning. Simple to play.
00:22:897 (3,1) - Another huge gap that doesn't make much sense to me, especially with the provided angle. - Plays fine, good emphasis, considering its 180 BPM for a song this intense this spacing is nothing.
00:32:064 (1) - I tried to stay objective with modding originally but, this rhythm is so bland and basic, and seems like you're aiming for difficulty more than you're aiming for a quality map. The way you did it in the intro of the section was much better. - Gonna be brutally honest, but thats ridiculously inconsiderate, if you accuse me of mapping for difficulty, consider bloodthirsty is 7.6 stars on its own while empress is 8.4, meaning this has zero impact on that, listening to guitar for this particular part as an example you can see why Ive chosen to use sliders and circles in their respective positions. Calling this low quality when Ive tried my hardest to put out the best piece of work I can, while staying true to the music is honestly insulting to me.

Everything after the point above, doesn't look like it had much structuring and patterning in mind. It's all mindless 1/2 spam with fully circular flow which makes for a very bland map. I tried to help you polish the structure a bit, but I don't think any of this is gonna cut it. - None of this is mindless, again I hate sounding like a dick but I really just dont think you can understand how complex this song is, and how the map actually reflects that accurately, nothing is midless, Ive placed everything with care and consideration to the best of my ability. Just because you disagree doesnt make it bad.

01:03:397 (1) - I cannot tell what you're emphasizing in this section all. The spacing seems so arbitrary and doesn't compliment anything the song provides, it just adds to the difficulty. The linear flow provides no feedback aim-wise and just feels so random. Linear flow on the starting combo is pretty obvious, drums are clean same sounds hence linear, the gap for the second 3 is for the vocals coming in.
01:08:397 (3,4,5,1) - Why is this jump so spaced out while 01:07:619 (1,2,3,4) - is completely linear? It makes no sense to me. - If you listen, the first point is vey high pitched guitar = more spacing for me. The second is gradual build up which is why Ive gone with the linear flow, the snapping when it reaches the peak and switches off helps to show that even more.

The rhythm is a whole other problem that is just flawed from the start of the section. It's so random and all I can say is remap. - Its 100% consistent with the song, again actually listen to how complex and varied this is and you might understand.

02:06:730 (1) - You start this guitar solo off with a huge stream then, ignore it for the rest of the solo..? You only fish out the hard part of the guitar solo to emphasize in your map? Why? This kind of mindless difficulty-oriented mapping puts me off a lot, this is one of the greater issues I have with the map. - This stream is really the only part of the guitar that truly stands out, it helps signify a new section, and as I explained to you in IRC, I ignored the majority of the solo since its random bursts of 1/4 which arent that clear and only make for an awkward and un-intuitive play experience.
02:28:175 (1) - There could be a beat on this blue tick for the guitar end. - Not really noticeable at 100% so I dont think it should be clickable, plus ending on a blue tick you can barely hear is plain awkward.
02:33:064 (4) - Would be better as a 3/4 slider. - Having one 3/4 slider randomly is a bad idea for me, this combo is mainly focused on the drums anyways.
03:47:013 (1) - Why not use kicksliders like you did earlier to compliment the orchestral melody? - I use kick sliders when the melody is 4 clear notes, here is one sustained and Ive gone with 1/2 sliders to break up the streams to make it more playable, and these in particular are 1/2 anyways.
04:03:458 (1) - What are these complimenting? - Consistency with the others, and considering there are no melodys for these sections it again helps to break up streams while still making sense since they sit on the snares nicely.
04:07:013 (1) -
04:10:569 (1) -
Etc.

04:16:347 (1) - Kickslider usage could be much more intuitive. - Guitar is clear streams here, kick sliders would be far too weak.
04:19:902 (1) - Another section that really peeves me. I cannot hear what you are complimenting with these rhythms and placements at ALL. They're literally just mindless 1/2 spam. This applies up to 04:55:458 (1) - . This is probably my second greatest issue. 04:20:124 (2,3) - Vocals are very clear on the heads. Again here. 04:20:791 (1,2,3) - And the whole section honestly. 04:20:791 (1,2,3) - Guitar and drums constant 1/4 piano helps justify as well, whats the issue?
05:38:791 (6,1) - This spacing could be bigger IMO. - It also doesnt need to be bigger.
05:39:902 (1) - More mindless 1/2 spam. - Explained so many times now, if you really think this is mindless I dont know what to say.
06:10:124 (1) - This explains itself. - Well it doesnt tell me what your problem is. Following rhythm guitar since lead isnt doing much of anything worth mapping.
06:19:013 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - SO overdone IMO, nothing here warrants such jumps at such high speed. - Its the height of the song, why would it not be this hard? Im gonna say this again and again but testplayers have never had issues with the jumps.
06:27:902 (1) - This jump pattern compliments nothing, you should create a pattern that compliments the guitar melody. - For starters its not a jump pattern, its designed to flow smoothly to match the guitar, its nowhere near aggressive enough to warrant jumps on every note.
06:31:458 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - Again, explains itself. - Again, explained multiple times in the thread.
06:44:347 (1,2,3,4) - ^
06:45:680 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2) - ^
07:20:124 (6,1) - Could be spaced out more. - Nope.

One thing you did well with this map is the streams IMO, they really seem to flow well and emphasize the song right, especially after the preview point.

For the rest however, I don't think this map is ready to stand in the rankings. And I am also to blame for that. I'd like to apologize for rushing into an icon so quickly with this map, I should have left it as is.

There is a lot more wrong with this map than I can point out, and I've barely scratched the surface with the mod above. If I were to point out every single thing, this would need a full remap. - This doesnt need a remap, there is no fundamental core issue at hand, its consistent and justifiable, not just by me but by many others. I honestly think you're being way too closed minded, or dare I say it trying to save yourself trouble and back out of this since you bubbled it.

[quote="Code of Conduct: Modding and Mapping":1337]Unless the concept behind a beatmap is fundamentally flawed from the start, modding should aim to improve the map in its current design - not force your own style upon it. If you truly believe the map has too many significant issues to address individually, try to give a general statement of why this is the case and what direction you think the map should go in to get back on track.

EphemeralFetish wrote:

Spaghetti wrote:

02:06:730 (1) - You start this guitar solo off with a huge stream then, ignore it for the rest of the solo..? You only fish out the hard part of the guitar solo to emphasize in your map? Why? This kind of mindless difficulty-oriented mapping puts me off a lot, this is one of the greater issues I have with the map. - This stream is really the only part of the guitar that truly stands out, it helps signify a new section, and as I explained to you in IRC, I ignored the majority of the solo since its random bursts of 1/4 which arent that clear and only make for an awkward and un-intuitive play experience.

EphemeralFetish wrote:

Dunno if you still wanted to mod this Cryptic, but Im calling it a day for now, Ill give a QAT a shout tomorrow and have them check both sides and see what they think regardless.

Cryptic wrote:

EphemeralFetish wrote:

Dunno if you still wanted to mod this Cryptic, but Im calling it a day for now, Ill give a QAT a shout tomorrow and have them check both sides and see what they think regardless.

Got a QAT opinion on those circles by the way. Since they aren't off-screen they're fine according to KwaN. And thats fine, I'll get around to it after I see how the current discussion pans out. No need to overload the thread with information yet.

Lost The Lights wrote:

I'm just gonna say this.

I'm not a standard player, neither a mapper, but Spaghetti made REALLY valid points, you're just rejecting it because you don't want your map disqualified, as any other mapper. In any case, you should rethink what Spaghetti said and ask for a DQ, since it will help you improve the quality of the map (which in my opinion is the most important thing about mapping).

Acting like this won't help you improve. If you got your map qualified, a disqualify is just to make sure the map gets better, and it will eventually get requalified, it's not the end of the world.

In any case, good luck with what you decide to do.

EphemeralFetish wrote:

Spaghetti wrote:

There is a lot more wrong with this map than I can point out, and I've barely scratched the surface with the mod above. If I were to point out every single thing, this would need a full remap. - This doesnt need a remap, there is no fundamental core issue at hand, its consistent and justifiable, not just by me but by many others. I honestly think you're being way too closed minded, or dare I say it trying to save yourself trouble and back out of this since you bubbled it.

Lost The Lights wrote:

I'm not a standard player, neither a mapper, but Spaghetti made REALLY valid points, you're just rejecting it because you don't want your map disqualified, as any other mapper. In any case, you should rethink what Spaghetti said and ask for a DQ, since it will help you improve the quality of the map (which in my opinion is the most important thing about mapping).

Acting like this won't help you improve. If you got your map qualified, a disqualify is just to make sure the map gets better, and it will eventually get requalified, it's not the end of the world.

In any case, good luck with what you decide to do.

Ayyri wrote:

LefafeI wrote:

Do you ever think before you type this shit out? Jesus fucking christ.

Posts like these will only lead to drama in the end.

He's a mapper, just like EphemeralFetish or yourself. He can understand rhythm and the mechanics of the game. Please do not undermine someone else's ability just because they are not highly skilled in that game mode.

Yunomi wrote:

u shud try making a gud map instead of tryin to get le osu fame omg 8 stars :3 1k peepee cokiezu fc !! haha very famous cool big diff mapper :d