1. osu! forums
  2. Beatmaps
  3. Beatmap Graveyard
show more
posted
oof
posted
I had my 15minutes of yearly glory when this was bubbled, cya next year!
posted

Lasse wrote:

there was never an actual reply to p/5947741 by the mapper

also @Bubblun: this is not how vetos are supposed to be handled anymore, see https://osu.ppy.sh/help/wiki/People/Bea ... atmap_Veto
we are still in the process of mediating old vetos and put this one on higher priority now, please wait until it has been discussed
What exactly do you expect from your reply? Let me just quote some lines:

"where? the blue tick? I don't think so " -> but he explained it? -> keeping the veto up even though it's been discussed already? logic behind that?
"it actually holds "extra" value by devaluing your other big jumps mapped to much more significant beats" -> but he explained it? -> ^
"doesn't make any sense to me but whatever" -> what does he even want to reply to that anymore?
"simplifying 3/4 rhythms on a 185bpm 7* map, nice. as above this doesn't represent the song at all" -> why would you only give him once choice, I thought we're out of the age where you force subjective points like this on a mapper. he thinks it's representative, so why can't you accept that?
"maybe reconsider your whole spacing concept then" -> same - what does he want to reply to that?

This is not how vetos should work. How comes this veto is considered still standing, even though there are valid explanations as to why this map works like it's intended to work?
posted
Further discussion maybe?
Keeping a veto until changes are made, when disagreeing with the reply, is exactly how these work, you should know from experience.

Furthermore the given replies were oftentimes far from satisfactory and pretty much nonsensical.
posted
please go waste your time on the countless things that actually need it instead.

the mapper responded to all your points and all you did in your reply afterwards was add little comments that didn't solidify your point in any way. calling his replies nonsensical but responding with things like ''maybe reconsider your entire spacing concept'' is just lol.
posted

Lasse wrote:

Further discussion maybe?
Discussions don't work like this. If you've read my post above, then you pretty much see where I'm coming from - your reply is nowhere close to base to discuss on.

Lasse wrote:

Furthermore the given replies were oftentimes far from satisfactory and pretty much nonsensical.
Can wholeheartedly disagree with that. I've read the replies twice now. Saying that this is "nonsensical" just seems like a stubborn comment to keep the veto for the sake of it.
posted
are you the mapper? I don't think so, I'm sure ProfessionalBox can actually speak for himself
if you can't see things like

and

as something to base discussion on then that's your problem

the referenced post was mainly stating why I'm vetoing the map, and why the veto will be kept unless major changes are done to address these points

you should just wait for the veto mediation (which I'm obviously not taking part in since it's my veto) to conclude before doing all this.
it's pointless to have this "discussion" you are trying to have now, and not months ago when it could have changed something

there is no point to keep this going so I'll stay out of here at least until everything concluded. I already have my opinion and all those things.
posted
@Lasse

It's exceedingly clear that not everything you wrote on: p/5947741 is part of the veto. Some parts certainly are, but others are clearly passing comments like "okay sure whatever" etc...

Can you make an actual post indicating for what reasons specifically you're veto'ing the map? Shouldn't be too hard right, just copy/pasting what you already said. It would actually steer the discussion somewhere. It's like you keep posting random issues here and there and saying they are all contributing to the veto. They may well be, but give us a post consolidating everything?



The veto mediation assumes the mapper isn't willing to make changes unless there is no option but to fix the issue. Poor assumption to make, especially with how convoluted this discussion has become. Also yea, those comments were clearly made before you became QAT. Calling issues nonsensical, saying the mapper is making baseless responses etc... clearly aren't productive to a discussion as a QAT. Make a new post, thanks.
posted

ProfessionalBox wrote:

Lasse wrote:

some issues I have with the top diff Let's hear them!

03:04:082 (1) - clicking this seems so strange with what's going on the song, deleting this and making 03:03:920 (1) - a 1/2 or 3/4 slider seems nicer This current patterning is a way of emphasizing the complete stop that the music has between 03:03:839 - 03:03:920 - by a large spacing from a slow slider going to a fast kickslider. The reason it is a kickslider is because it immediately shoots the cursor movement back into the large and fast slider velocity that the part before it had and the part after it has in order to make the increase in overall spacing feel natural right from the start. Anytyhing else but a kickslider would feel lackluster in my opinion. the issue is not the kickslider itself, but how you put a click on 03:04:082 -
which makes no sense at all as I stated before. also the kickslider doesn't have such an effect as nobody willl follow it, thus no "shooting the movement
back" or anything. things that would make more sense: higher sv + 1/2 or 3/4 slider, a gap on rhythm, ...
Made this a slider instead.
03:05:866 (3) - all important sounds are on the red tick, but you put a pretty pointless seeming extended slider over that? // 01:33:110 (6) - It would seem that this is outdated now as there is no extended slider

I also have no idea why things like 03:05:379 (3) - 03:06:352 (2) - etc. have to be fullscreen jumps, it's such a weak sound The fact that it is fullscreen doesn't really hold any extra value here as the whole part has relatively high spacing to follow the transpose the music has and the increase in intensity that the music brings with it because of that. So compared to rest of the spacing in this part this is normal spacing and consistent. it actually holds "extra" value by devaluing your other big jumps mapped to much more significant beats These are not nearly big enough to devalue other jumps in the map. The whole point of this part is what I explained earlier: Following the transpose with bigger overall spacing for the entire kiai section makes perfect sense. Unless you have another argument than devaluing jumps I will not even consider changing these as these are perfectly fine.

overall rhythm choice overall often seems like you just throw multiple layers together losing pretty much all emphasis, like 03:07:974 (2,2) - are emphasizing vocals, but 03:07:487 (1) - ignores vocals, despite 03:07:487 (1,1,2,1,2) - being a rather repetitive thing, so using the same rhythm for all 3 parts of this would make more sense I think This part has been changed with the IRC mod from Bubblun

01:39:110 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,1) - this completely ignores the song with the pretty outstanding 3/4 rhythm of the drums, emphasis would be on http://lasse.s-ul.eu/RohA0gx2.jpg Changed.

02:26:785 (2) - things like this make no sense at all emphasis wise, you put a click on nothing and end it on snare+vocal which seem to be what you usally focus on 02:26:299 (1,2,1,2) - These being the opposites of eachother rhythmwise is intended to emphasize the switch from vocal follow into following drums for the duration that vocals aren't present how does that justify mapping 1/2 sliders that randomly start on nothing but end on important beats. this could probably work as some overall concept of the map, but not like you did it idk if this is an outdated point but the current way is perfectly fine not gonna touch it.

02:57:109 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - completely ignores 3/4 emphasis again, when http://lasse.s-ul.eu/QIRZ6L19.jpg stand out so much more#
this is so distinctively different from 02:55:812 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - yet you just continue the spacing increasing stream. Here it is about the gradual intensity increase of the part as a whole and not individual circles. The important beats get their emphasis from the tiny streamjumps included. Not gonna budge on this.

03:44:298 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - think a rhythm like http://lasse.s-ul.eu/ARIYEh0W.jpg would be nice as that would let you emphasize the snares with 1/4 sliders and the melody with jumps/starting to click again, the current is alright on melody with (5) but seems a bit weird with the very outstanding snares on the white ticks Here the emphasizing in the simplified version happens with the turning point being the strong kick 03:44:622 (5) - simplifying 3/4 rhythms on a 185bpm 7* map, nice. as above this doesn't represent the song at all Current way is perfectly fine.

another thing would be overall usage of spacing between sections, mainly in the "calmer" parts like the intro, making for a lack of contrast between them and the more intense parts
examples would be 00:06:028 (2,3) - 00:05:704 (5,1) - 00:11:218 (6,1) - and a lot more similar stuff in this part. it's only background noise and vocals, yet very similar to the first chorus intensity wise Hmm I like the idea of distincting these more so I'll adjust them to what might seem a little to you but noticeable for me but still I will lower the spacing on these!
00:46:974 (1) - 00:56:461 - this part is executed better in that regard I agree.


00:57:272 (2,3) - what are these even following? big spacing jumps on nothing? I agree these do land on nothingness but this is the kind of reasonable "overmapping" that exists as I went over this with Monstrata and got opinions from players such as Xilver for this aswell. While you are playing this clicking at these part feels only natural opposed to having nothing there. And the argument for these being big jumps refer to my response below. similar to earlier points, devalues the actual strong sounds in the song Current way is perfectly fine.
02:14:461 (2) - can you at least not put huge spacing on these things lol clicking is already barely makes any sense here But this isn't huge? compare to 02:15:272 (2,3) - 02:16:083 (3,1) - 02:16:893 (3,4) - This is normal spacing I use for this part. maybe reconsider your whole spacing concept then Current way is perfectly fine.
Thank you for the mods :) !
I hope this suffices as a proper reply to the veto.
posted
01:39:110 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - this at least makes more sense now
02:56:785 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - still doesnt even try to represent the 3/4 emphasis in the song through movement or rhythm

well the map is still filled with lots of questionable things, so I'll just sum up the main points again since the replies are getting too convoluted

just looking at rhythms 03:04:244 (1,2,3,4) - makes me question what you're trying to do, it feels like mindless circle spam and according to your replies this won't change and it's basically the whole map. basically makes the whole map feel extremely forced since it's filled with circle jump spam that feels completely out of place

some other diffs (like Kibbleru's) actually seem to do this much better from the quick look I had, if you want an example for rhythm choice that actually makes sense

rhythm/spacing overall just feels like a mess, looking at things like 03:07:487 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - just being random fullscreen 1-2 jumps, you can't even argue that you wanted to emphasize vocals or whatever, those are focusing on red ticks

then other rhythm things that just make everything unclear for example 01:25:326 (5) - before this you focused on vocals, then suddenly this just switches to drums and completely skips red tick vocal, followed by 01:25:326 (5,1,2,3) - being some kind of drum rhythm just to go back to vocals on 01:26:299 (1,2,3,1,2) - which is one of the issues that happens pretty much throughout the whole map

[]
short summary:
overall I still think both spacing and rhythm are fundamentally flawed, which is also the main reason to keep this veto
lots of examples in the initial veto (like 00:57:110 (1,2,3) - etc) and in this post, I can basically jump to a random point in the map and find things like 01:31:488 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - within a few seconds, which just feels like nonsensical filler rhythm jump spam
posted
hello just wanted to say i love this map and also ask if the snapping of 01:56:623 (1) - was intentional, cause it sounds rather weird having it be 1/4 beat longer than 01:56:947 (1,2,3) - 03:39:758 (1,2,1,2) -

edit: top diff btw
posted

Lasse wrote:

01:39:110 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - this at least makes more sense now
02:56:785 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - still doesnt even try to represent the 3/4 emphasis in the song through movement or rhythm

well the map is still filled with lots of questionable things, so I'll just sum up the main points again since the replies are getting too convoluted

just looking at rhythms 03:04:244 (1,2,3,4) - makes me question what you're trying to do, it feels like mindless circle spam and according to your replies this won't change and it's basically the whole map. basically makes the whole map feel extremely forced since it's filled with circle jump spam that feels completely out of place

some other diffs (like Kibbleru's) actually seem to do this much better from the quick look I had, if you want an example for rhythm choice that actually makes sense

rhythm/spacing overall just feels like a mess, looking at things like 03:07:487 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - just being random fullscreen 1-2 jumps, you can't even argue that you wanted to emphasize vocals or whatever, those are focusing on red ticks

then other rhythm things that just make everything unclear for example 01:25:326 (5) - before this you focused on vocals, then suddenly this just switches to drums and completely skips red tick vocal, followed by 01:25:326 (5,1,2,3) - being some kind of drum rhythm just to go back to vocals on 01:26:299 (1,2,3,1,2) - which is one of the issues that happens pretty much throughout the whole map

[]
short summary:
overall I still think both spacing and rhythm are fundamentally flawed, which is also the main reason to keep this veto
lots of examples in the initial veto (like 00:57:110 (1,2,3) - etc) and in this post, I can basically jump to a random point in the map and find things like 01:31:488 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - within a few seconds, which just feels like nonsensical filler rhythm jump spam
get out of here please :)
posted
Making a quick post responding to the official "veto-ing" post. I trust you guys will consider these points when mediating the veto. There are points I agree with and points I disagree with, as the BN who originally nominated this after literally 8+ hours of modding and rechecking, and discussing the same issues with ProBox beforehand.

I've edited out unnecessary passive aggressive attacks, and baseless rhetoric, not sure why we're getting so worked out over a map lol. No need to reject someone elses work as nonsensical or making absolutely no sense. It doesn't have to make sense to you, but calling the map these kinds of phrases does not add anything to the discussion, it only shows your apparent anger towards the map :? .

Green = stuff I agree with

Red = stuff I think is misguided

Lasse wrote:

02:56:785 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - still doesnt even try to represent the 3/4 emphasis in the song through movement or rhythm This shouldn't need to follow 3/4 emphasis. This is clearly following the 1/4 drum roll and it's completely justified by the music. Here, there is no imperative to following 3/4, rather that would distract from the mapper's objective here.

just looking at rhythms 03:04:244 (1,2,3,4) - makes me question what you're trying to do, it feels like mindless circle spam and according to your replies this won't change and it's basically the whole map. basically makes the whole map feel extremely forced since it's filled with circle jump spam that feels completely out of place Are you sure? This is probably not the timestamp you want, because everything here is justified in the music... Listen to what the circles are following, when you click them you can hear them syncing to something. I get your concerns though, just, not a good example here imo.

rhythm/spacing overall just feels like a mess, looking at things like 03:07:487 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - just being random fullscreen 1-2 jumps, you can't even argue that you wanted to emphasize vocals or whatever, those are focusing on red ticks If you look at the map as a whole they aren't "random full screen" jumps, they aren't even that big since vertical screen jumps are a lot smaller than horizontal screen jumps. Rhythm-wise, they follow kicks and vocals. Following vocals =/= emphasizing vocals. Mapping these as 1/2 sliders is too simple for this difficulty, using 1/2 circles is the way to go so inevitable you have to map kicks and vocals to 1/2.

then other rhythm things that just make everything unclear for example 01:25:326 (5) - before this you focused on vocals, then suddenly this just switches to drums and completely skips red tick vocal, followed by 01:25:326 (5,1,2,3) - being some kind of drum rhythm just to go back to vocals on 01:26:299 (1,2,3,1,2) - which is one of the issues that happens pretty much throughout the whole map Yes, agree with these. Brought it up with ProBox at one point, I still recommend fixing this.

[]
short summary:
overall I still think both spacing and rhythm are fundamentally flawed, which is also the main reason to keep this veto
lots of examples in the initial veto (like 00:57:110 (1,2,3) - etc) This is a good example and in this post, I can basically jump to a random point in the map and find things like 01:31:488 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - within a few seconds Poor example here though. Everything here snaps to something in the music., which just feels like nonsensical filler rhythm jump spam
Overall your analysis is not bad, but still lacking because you either mistakenly selected wrong timestamps, or are incorrectly labelling every "example" you find as unjustified/nonsensical. For example, looking at your short summary, you are absolutely correct in saying stuff like 00:57:110 (1,2,3) - are unjustified in both rhythm choice (why are they circles, there's no musical support for them) and spacing (why are they so big? there is nothing supporting them in the music so creating emphasis onto them is an even bigger red flag). Stuff like this is worth veto'ing. I brought it up as a potential concern when I originally nominated, but wanted to see how this issue would be discussed. A discussion around these pattern is what I was looking for, so thank you for that.

I was not, however, expecting to see patterns like 01:31:488 (1,2,1,2) - as you mentioned, lumped in with the example above. Here, you can clearly hear that every object has some musical correlation to it. 01:31:488 (1) - Kick + vocal 01:31:650 (2) - vocal 01:31:812 (1) - kick 01:31:974 (2) - vocal. Compare that to 00:57:110 (1,2,3) - ... 00:57:110 (1) - Vocal + kick, 00:57:272 (2) - nothing, 00:57:434 (3) - nothing. The difference is clear, and I trust you can make this distinction. Lumping them together would mean making an incorrect assumption that everything is unjustified.

If your problem is "filler rhythm" like 01:31:488 (1,2,1,2) - 03:07:487 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - etc... then you should know filler rhythm is used a lot in ranked maps. I could pull some off your maps too, but I'm sure that's not going to be productive to this discussion. Filler rhythm is often employed, so in that respect, your claim is not strong.

If your problem is "unjustified rhythm choices" like 00:57:110 (1,2,3,4) - then you have a valid case, as this is something you rarely see in ranked maps (true overmapping, imo). But stick to veto'ing for these issues and these issues alone. Lumping filler rhythm examples in with this is precisely what is causing this confusion because ProBox and other modders/mappers are looking at other examples you posted and going "what? but those are clearly justified?".
posted
i think thats good enough, to tierd to read all but probably good ;)
posted
well, some clarification then
02:56:785 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - isn't too bad, I still think it's oversimplified when the song does something so unique, but I guess you can argue current thing with 1/1 emphasis on vocals


03:07:487 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - maybe this wasn't worded clearly enough, the rhythm itself wouldn't be too bad if the patterning actually focused on the red ticks since then it would make sense as "emphasizing" vocals like you said, but putting a white tick focused 1/2 spam pattern here just doesn't seem reasonable. for example something like https://i.imgur.com/3jMK5iD.jpg could actually work (I'm not talking about only changing the comboing, but also adjusting movemetn/patterning to focus on these ticks). I never said 1/2 circle spam isn't acceptable here, just the focus of it feels completely off.
basically what was done on 03:37:163 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,3) - which is also circle spam, but actually follows the melody by focusing on the red ticks, seems more fitting


03:04:244 (1,2,3,4) - my issue wasn't them being mapped to nothing, but the rhythm choice not following anything in particular since everything is mapped as a circle jump, kinda similar to last point
01:31:488 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - basically has the same problem as ^ where it just ends up ignoring the offbeat emphasis in the song which makes it feel out of place, just like many other similar things


I think we can both agree that mapping sounds in the song =/= mapping the song
and also that mapping sounds not in the song =/= not mapping the song
it's just that the both of these ideas aren't really well executed, as mentioned before

this should clear up some things at least
also can we not get too hung up on wording as long as it doesn't go into personal attacks or straight up insults?

and a last friendly reminder to stay on topic instead of posting nonsense that doesn't contribute in any way (@seni, voli)
posted
I don't want to go into further arguing here as I feel like this could go on forever so I'm just waiting for the mediation and whatever it says will determine how we'll proceed. I did expect it to be posted already unless that's not how it works? I was told a 3day waiting period but it's been like 5 already.
posted
Hello!

One of your beatmaps was recently referred to us for mediation following a Beatmap Nominator veto. The details of the veto can be found here.

After discussion amongst members of the Quality Assurance Team Disqualification Branch, we have decided to uphold the veto. The reasons for this decision are stated briefly below:

  1. Spacing concept used leaves little to no room for contrast in spacing and movement to match contrasting elements in the song within many patterns. Contrast in spacing between patterns in certain sections is too minor and disallows differentiation of strong vs. weak beats. Examples can be found within the original veto post, alongside 00:31:164 (1,2,3,1) - mostly mapped to faint bg noise yet huge spacing, 00:36:353 (1,2) - emphasis on red tick with no sound yet is nearly halfway across the screen, 01:05:218 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - which has no emphasis on red ticks yet are 1>2 half-screens.
  2. An abundance of overmapping mostly unsupported by the song. A noticeable case is 00:55:650 (3,1,2,3) - where there is no 3/4 in the song, similar to 02:12:191 (2,1,2). 00:57:110 (1,2,3,4) - also an unsupported rhythm as there are no notable sounds on (2), coupled with too high spacing.


Additional information/discussion points can be found in this post and, as stated previously, in the original veto post.

The beatmap may not be re-nominated at this time until appropriate changes are made that remedy the issues present.

Once changes have been made to the beatmap, both the Nominator who performed the beatmap veto, as well as the QAT members upholding it, will recheck the beatmap and decide individually if the issues have been satisfactorily addressed.
posted
you people are trying so hard to kill osu lol
posted

diraimur wrote:

you people are trying so hard to kill osu lol
what do u think happens when you give power hungry children power?
posted

-Mo- wrote:

Spacing concept used leaves little to no room for contrast in spacing and movement to match contrasting elements in the song within many patterns. Contrast in spacing between patterns in certain sections is too minor and disallows differentiation of strong vs. weak beats.
So I as the mapper am not allowed to interpret what I want to contrast? I'm forced to follow kick - snare - kick - snare - kick - snare - kick - snare - kick - snare - loop for the entirety of the map in every pattern I make instead of map the vocals/melody in a generally highly spaced manner like I am currently?

00:31:164 (1,2,3,1,2,1,2,1,2,3,4,5,6) - The entirety of this pattern where all circles except for the second one land on either very audible lead or kick sound is entirely flawed because I'm not having contrast between the snare and the melody when both of them are very much present equally?

And if you call this 00:31:164 (1,2) - huge then have you even looked at the rest of the map? In this context this is very much minor just look at all the objects afterwards that land on those strong sounds because each and everyone of those has a bigger spacing than this 1-2 here which is supposed to be the most unemphasized thing like it currently is.

I simply don't understand these claims when you only justify them by how much space they have in between each other on the screen instead of putting them into the context of the map where they are clearly smaller when an unimportant sound is played.

"00:36:353 (1,2) - emphasis on red tick with no sound yet is nearly halfway across the screen" Have you ever considered that when you have an object that flows well into another you need more spacing to emphasize it? This pattern flows extremely well which means that if I really wanted to EMPHASIZE the (2) here I'd throw it not just halfway across the screen but on the other side of the screen entirely. If this didn't flow as perfectly as this does your point would be valid about this being too far apart but in this context because of the perfect movement you don't emphasize the (2) at all. Instead it is located where it is only natural for it to be.

"01:05:218 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - which has no emphasis on red ticks yet are 1>2 half-screens" Are you even paying attention to the song? Notice how the kick-snare loop begins here as the song kicks up in intensity? How would I emphasize that overall increase in intensity for this part? You guessed it: BY INCREASING THE GENERAL SPACING FOR THE DURATION OF THE INTENSE PART. Notice how after this the calm part feels easier to play like it would be contrasting the song??? But wait is that possible when you claim that my "Contrast in spacing between patterns in certain sections is too minor".

The only thing I'm getting here is that you use the argument "half-screen" for everything like it is a valid argument. What I have here is a 180bpm song that I made into a very hard map. Well you would need more spacing for a lower bpm song to make that very hard map right? I'd love to see this argument of half screen jumps being used in a more lower bpm song like they are banned from usage and can't be part of the base spacing of a map because that is exactly what they are in this one. The parts that need emphasizing are practically full screen jumps and the parts that fall in between are these half screen ones and for the very slow calm parts you have even smaller spacing.

-Mo- wrote:

An abundance of overmapping mostly unsupported by the song.
If they are so abundant then can you please list me more of these aswell? I really don't know which parts you mean other than the ones you have linked here and those that have been brought up earlier and got looked over or fixed. I will then go edit the sounds into the mp3 so they are undeniably supported.

Thank you for your time.
show more
Please sign in to reply.