A map doesn't represent the whole star range. You are not even close to doing 6* consistently.
I can do them better than 5* maps, which isn't right. I use to bash 6 - 7* maps all the time. Not even worrying about the 4* and below. I've stopped that about 5 months ago. Maybe that's why? I honestly don't know.
B1oody wrote:A map doesn't represent the whole star range. You are not even close to doing 6* consistently.
No you can't. Play more.
- Medaka - wrote:I can do them better than 5* maps, which isn't right.
That's not the problem, if you can beat a single 7* section, in theory you can potentially beat other 7* parts so what those people say might be true.
Starrodkirby86 wrote:The fickly part about star ratings is that many players, especially newer ones, often get a misimpression that the overall star rating means everything. However, especially when one plays more and more maps, while the star rating is a good base indicator for difficulty and things like that, the rating itself doesn't actually tell all. For instance, maps often get overinflated star ratings due to a couple of jumps at the end that ramp up its rating and difficulty.
For instance, Monstrata's controversial map Quaver is rated at a staggering 7.42*, but analyzing the map through a service like Oppai Chunks can show that most of the map is actually very easily a 5* map.
That kind of trend can often lead to a false impression of things like, "I CAN PASS AN 7*!", where in actuality the better challenge is to then consistently pass multiple 7*s.
In your case, perhaps the jumps and the map overall just have a good flow and you can meshed well with it. Maybe there's a portion in that song where the difficulty just ramped up due to a few jumps, but the rest of the song is pretty tame. Now Loading!!!! [Extra] by Doormat is a pretty good candidate for that.
So I guess what I'm saying is that, it's more about the actual map's content itself, and the overall things that paint that picture. Definitely play more and get a variety of maps under your belt.