The long and short of it is; this map has set out everything it wants to do - it's fun, challenging, and fits the song in ways that me and Fetish agree with, to an extent. We've made concessions to eachother in certain parts because we respect eachother's decisions and understand that playing-wise it's not all that impactful in a negative matter at all.
I've not seen a single playtester on this map ever call it anything but "pretty good". They either found it played normally, or it was a refreshing change that didn't smack them in the face. It was, and is, different without being difficult. I use extensive playtesting (and experience watching playtesters and how they play/react - seriously there's a ton of tells) as well as experience and knowledge to supplement (or replace) personal playtesting (which, objectively speaking, is what you said was necessary). There were a small number of players who struggled with some concepts (shout out to logic agent who still fails the perfectly overlapping slider bits) but invariably there wasn't any real commentary towards "the feel" of the map other than it being different, and their movements followed what I want them to be.
I fail to see why your disagreement renders your opinion of higher value than my own on my own map, especially when I've explained logically and reasonably as to what my ideals and concepts are. You're not exactly a stellar player yourself, so you've got to have some sort of experience and knowledge backing you - but it appears it's vastly inferior to mine.
People armchair editor too much nowadays. Back in my day (waves cane) I was an outright oddity because I always struggled to play my own maps and I wasn't ever really capable of playing this game well due to X or Y reason. But now, it seems like it's the norm that experienced mappers aren't necessarily that good at playing the game, much less modders.
And that leads to mappers needing to satisfy other mappers - it's a feedback loop where people jerk off over concepts that are theoretically relevant but are horrifically overblown and really don't have the impact they claim it does. I'm sickened by the amount of psuedo-science bullshit people are willing to throw around, and further irritated by how much impact they claim these concepts have on the player.
All a map needs to do is consistently follow the music's rhythm, with creative liberties applied for the mapper to use their own interpretation. Everything else is just gravy. "Rankability" is a standard that's always been peer-oriented (see: the east's tolerance for what west would consider complete crap) and is just as subjective in the end.
tl;dr you're overblowing the fuck out of some shitty concepts that only need to be considered up to a certain point, after that go nuts. This map isn't that special. It's not that great. It's a cool map. It doesn't need to be perfect in every single person's eyes. It never will be. And I don't care if it's not perfect in your eyes, or even if it's really any good at all. It's fine.
I've not seen a single playtester on this map ever call it anything but "pretty good". They either found it played normally, or it was a refreshing change that didn't smack them in the face. It was, and is, different without being difficult. I use extensive playtesting (and experience watching playtesters and how they play/react - seriously there's a ton of tells) as well as experience and knowledge to supplement (or replace) personal playtesting (which, objectively speaking, is what you said was necessary). There were a small number of players who struggled with some concepts (shout out to logic agent who still fails the perfectly overlapping slider bits) but invariably there wasn't any real commentary towards "the feel" of the map other than it being different, and their movements followed what I want them to be.
I fail to see why your disagreement renders your opinion of higher value than my own on my own map, especially when I've explained logically and reasonably as to what my ideals and concepts are. You're not exactly a stellar player yourself, so you've got to have some sort of experience and knowledge backing you - but it appears it's vastly inferior to mine.
People armchair editor too much nowadays. Back in my day (waves cane) I was an outright oddity because I always struggled to play my own maps and I wasn't ever really capable of playing this game well due to X or Y reason. But now, it seems like it's the norm that experienced mappers aren't necessarily that good at playing the game, much less modders.
And that leads to mappers needing to satisfy other mappers - it's a feedback loop where people jerk off over concepts that are theoretically relevant but are horrifically overblown and really don't have the impact they claim it does. I'm sickened by the amount of psuedo-science bullshit people are willing to throw around, and further irritated by how much impact they claim these concepts have on the player.
All a map needs to do is consistently follow the music's rhythm, with creative liberties applied for the mapper to use their own interpretation. Everything else is just gravy. "Rankability" is a standard that's always been peer-oriented (see: the east's tolerance for what west would consider complete crap) and is just as subjective in the end.
tl;dr you're overblowing the fuck out of some shitty concepts that only need to be considered up to a certain point, after that go nuts. This map isn't that special. It's not that great. It's a cool map. It doesn't need to be perfect in every single person's eyes. It never will be. And I don't care if it's not perfect in your eyes, or even if it's really any good at all. It's fine.