you people are trying so hard to kill osu lol
what do u think happens when you give power hungry children power?diraimur wrote:
you people are trying so hard to kill osu lol
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?-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.
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.-Mo- wrote:
An abundance of overmapping mostly unsupported by the song.
Overall from what I understand and read, it feels like the map was vetod because some people don't agree with the idea the map is mapped.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 Does it have to? He decided to make a stream there as a buildup, this is fine? Even if I would not map it like this, I understand why it is mapped the way it is.
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 If you see this in basically the whole map, maybe that was the idea? I actually think emphasizing the way he did is interesting, it's off-polarity but still carries the same meaning while playing. The thing you say is "forced", I think that's just the style he was going for in the map, because the difficulty is supposed to be difficult, if he'd just do the difficult parts as difficult as they are, there would be complains about PP parts I reckon. The rhythm is not a standard approach, but it makes sense. Since it's consistent in the map, you get used to playing the map that way too.
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 The emphasis is still on the vocals, he doesn't need to put a click on the vocal when he emphasizes it the way he does in the song, look at the whole map not just at the pattern, the other patterns are made the same way. But about the spacing, yeah I don't really agree with it since if focusing vocals was the goal the spacing should not be as big here as when the pitch really goes high up in the song, that part of the map, I don't understand either, yet I feel it's acceptable since it's an idea he had and he follows it.
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, Agree, the vocal should be emphasized there.[/color] 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 Yeah I Agree about the rhythm change although, in some maps you can't always focus the vocals and make it play well, the filler rhythm is okay, you can still change to simple rhythm for a few notes and go back to vocals when it presents the opportunity to do so, that makes the map play much better, focusing solely on vocals and ignoring other stuff is not always the best idea either. Also again, if it happens in entire map, that makes you ready for it, and it's consistent, which is again, fine.
[]
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) Right this example here I don't see a problem, I rather think minimizing the spacing would make it play more awkwardly than it does right now considering the general spacing of the map, that applies to many of those examples you think of. The bigger spacing works in this map, I tried changing to lower and it played completely differently. 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 Even though I would not space it as much, you just feel it's nonsensical filler rhythm jump spam, but for him it's the idea of how he maps those sections in the song, don't you think a mapper like ProBox thinks of what he is doing, he obviously follows the same logic throughout the map, it might not suit your idea but it's consistent, it plays well and while I don't agree with the spacing I think it's acceptable in a difficult map like this.
-Mo- wrote:
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:Additional information/discussion points can be found in this post and, as stated previously, in the original veto post.
- 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.
Contrast is not limited to spacing. There are other ways to create emphasis, and other ways to show groupings. Perhaps you meant "the spacing concept does not utilize enough instances of high/low spacing". If you meant that, to which the solution is increasing the usage of high/low spacing a bit, then we have something to work with. The current analysis ignores other methods of creating emphasis, and also assumes a map requires emphasis at all points. One really big "problem" you might have seen in quaver is it's near complete lack of "emphasis" across multiple jump patterns, regardless of snare placements (listen to hitsounds). This is because with largely-spaced jumps, spacing changes become a lot more problematic for players. The spacing changes aren't as appreciated because players are moving so fast, and changing spacing results in poor flow too, because the player will not be able to maintain a consistent movement, which they need to maintain momentum and play these really big jumps.- 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.
I think there is some merit to this, but as I already mentioned in my response to Lasse, it would greatly benefit this discussion if you guys could clarify that these "abundant instances of overmapping" are directed at only these true overmapping circles, and not other patterns that are being used as filler rhythm. Please refer to my post because it is honestly the #1 reason why everyone's getting confused here. Then again, it doesn't seem like there are abundant cases using those examples as reference. How about you go through the first minute of the song, or half of it, and point out all instances? If you do that, we can immediately get a sense of how to best remedy this issue. And perhaps you might realize there actually aren't as many cases of unsupported notes as you may have thought.
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.
The first one is intentional - the latter one isn't. I feel like the first one helps build that extra bit of tension before letting you on a break and I feel like it's a nice touch in that sense. The latter one I removed.UndeadCapulet wrote:
uh im not gonna touch anything in this thread but i think you should remove the break extensions at 02:38:947 - and 02:46:204 - bc they dont follow anything
best of luck getting this sorted out
The beatmap may not be re-nominated at this time until appropriate changes are made that remedy the issues present.Can the QAT explain how these new veto rules allow mappers to stand up for themselves? Despite the clear contrast in mapping views between the QAT and some ex-BNs who both provide fair opinions on the map, the mapper is still being forced to apply the vetoed changes; The changes the QAT themselves deemed necessary. I think you guys need to look over the statements (Especially Monstrata's, he explained it really well) and let this map go through as clear corruption is going on. The mediation here was clearly not designed to improve the map, so I feel it's unfair to uphold the veto.
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.
The thing is, it doesn't allow them. If the arguments were not compelling enough or the mentioned stuff didn't change, the map is as good as nuked. Although there may be a case in which the community and random guys pressure the QAT so hard they start doubting their choices ;p.Bubblun wrote:
The beatmap may not be re-nominated at this time until appropriate changes are made that remedy the issues present.Can the QAT explain how these new veto rules allow mappers to stand up for themselves? Despite the clear contrast in mapping views between the QAT and some ex-BNs who both provide fair opinions on the map, the mapper is still being forced to apply the vetoed changes; The changes the QAT themselves deemed necessary. I think you guys need to look over the statements (Especially Monstrata's, he explained it really well) and let this map go through as clear corruption is going on. The mediation here was clearly not designed to improve the map, so I feel it's unfair to uphold the veto.
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.
03:31:974 (5,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - Like if you're claiming to follow the melody/synth or w/e it would only make sense to do sliders on red ticks , or like how you're doing cross screen jumps here 03:37:163 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - even though white ticks are not a part of the synth, etc. Imo if you're mapping both layers it won't be intuitive and as intense as if you would follow the same layer building up in constant 1/2's . The least you could do is reduce it's spacing by a fair margin in order to make stuff that's pure one layer following and intuitive to everyone be truly emphasized. Rhythmically human beings struggle at following two layers at once too, you'd either follow one rhythm or the other. 02:29:542 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - this is really nice because its the same layer making it quite intuitive. 03:07:487 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - but this is as spaced as that with overmapping (or rather following 2 layers at once).ProfessionalBox wrote:
The part as a whole is more intense because of the transpose that happens at the buildup. As for what I'm following I am following the instruments in the background while catching some of the longer vocals with extended sliders.MaridiuS wrote:
03:14:298 (2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1) - Just asking but I fail to understand what is being followed here. The vocals 03:14:298 (2,4,5) - which are like the only thing remotely intense in this pattern are not emphasized by either spacing or rhythm. 03:14:460 (3) - this note is too quiet to the point that I'm unsure if it's even a hihat.
Here for example I simply cannot hear the background instruments over the vocals. It took me your reply and more analysis to realize the synth / piano in the editor, how do you assume that players will instantly hear and understand the rhythm over the vocals which are a lot more louder.This follows the piano melody on the background that is gradually rising in pitch.MaridiuS wrote:
03:15:271 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - same concern here.
Here it's still vague and goes beyond attention of the player unless mentioned (even then barely to me).
i think you people are looking at the map too narrowly without looking at the big picture. also for the record, ideas kinda lose their meanings if you enforce them, no?MaridiuS wrote:
The thing is, it doesn't allow them. If the arguments were not compelling enough or the mentioned stuff didn't change, the map is as good as nuked. Although there may be a case in which the community and random guys pressure the QAT so hard they start doubting their choices ;p.
"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:"
Let this sink in, QAT decided that this map is fundamentally flawed not just like 2 people. bunch of people that dont even play the gamemode decided that a map thats way above their comfort level (im not talking about gameplay wise, im actually talking about mapping. obviously they differ.) that a map is fundamentally flawed, therefore it should be! wait what
Also, am too lazy to read the whole thread but since people like to take sides i'd take the QAT one. The fact doesn't change that there are plenty of overmaps (or rather important notes getting the same emphasis as plain hihats) and that base spacing is way too over the top that there's no proper contrast. Some small patterning tweaks are not adequate because they're really small. There is no big difference in patterning or movement for it to be proper contrast because the spacing is just way too big for anything else to be felt as normally as it would on lower spacing. its almost like this map was made to be challenging
"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? "
Generally the problems is that you're not doing the vocals melody emphasis? For example this: 03:07:163 (3) - it's just a plain snare yet it gets emphasis like vocals or melody that you're claiming to follow. There are multiple cases in which you just follow the drums out of nowhere even if they have little or nothing to do with the layer you were following. you can combine multiple layers. other rhythm games do this a lot. its crazy, right?
This follows the piano melody on the background that is gradually rising in pitch.
Here it's still vague and goes beyond attention of the player unless mentioned (even then barely to me).
03:31:974 (5,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - Like if you're claiming to follow the melody/synth or w/e it would only make sense to do sliders on red ticks , or like how you're doing cross screen jumps here 03:37:163 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - excuse me, whats the difference between two of them aside from different symmetry usage? even though white ticks are not a part of the synth, etc. Imo if you're mapping both layers it won't be intuitive and as intense as if you would follow the same layer building up in constant 1/2's . The least you could do is reduce it's spacing by a fair margin in order to make stuff that's pure one layer following and intuitive to everyone be truly emphasized. i think its a common misconseption that you have to completely butcher other layers to emphasise on just one, and a very narrow view on the song overall. Rhythmically human beings struggle at following two layers at once too, you'd either follow one rhythm or the other. 02:29:542 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - this is really nice because its the same layer making it quite intuitive. 03:07:487 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - but this is as spaced as that with overmapping (or rather following 2 layers at once). hello i'm not sure if we are looking at same difficulty but this map supposed to be a challenging map. i just wanted to point that out!
Also a message to everyone that you seem to forget: Just because it's an idea doesn't mean that it's a good or the best one.
:arrow: Generally the problems is that you're not doing the vocals melody emphasis? For example this: 03:07:163 (3) - it's just a plain snare yet it gets emphasis like vocals or melody that you're claiming to follow. There are multiple cases in which you just follow the drums out of nowhere even if they have little or nothing to do with the layer you were following. you can combine multiple layers. other rhythm games do this a lot. its crazy, right?The difference is that in other rhythmic games you use different buttons for different layers. This is all just being pressed with one button (unless you're alting) while if it's not emphasized with rhythm its not neither with patterning or spacing or other forms of emphasis in multiple cases.
its almost like this map was made to be challengingThat should never be done at the cost of sacrificing song following on larger degrees if it were to be fit for ranked section.
Let this sink in, QAT decided that this map is fundamentally flawed not just like 2 people. bunch of people that dont even play the gamemode decided that a map thats way above their comfort level (im not talking about gameplay wise, im actually talking about mapping. obviously they differ.) that a map is fundamentally flawed, therefore it should be! wait whatWhere'd you get the info that other game modes are interfering? That is not happening and I can assure you. Also I'd appreciate people not attacking people for their rank when there are things being judged here that is not playability, and they can also judge playability to a fair margin.
"i think you people are looking at the map too narrowly without looking at the big picture. also for the record, ideas kinda lose their meanings if you enforce them, no?"
just wanted to clarify the qat comment. i don't think any idea should pass obviously, but i still fail to see something that makes this map "fundamentally wrong" when so far no timestamps given proves the point of it.MaridiuS wrote:
The difference is that in other rhythmic games you use different buttons for different layers. This is all just being pressed with one button (unless you're alting) while if it's not emphasized with rhythm its not neither with patterning or spacing or other forms of emphasis in multiple cases. thats not the case with every rhythm game though, there are ones that do combine multiple layers on same buttons, it's actually more common than you probably think it is
Where'd you get the info that other game modes are interfering? That is not happening and I can assure you. Also I'd appreciate people not attacking people for their rank when there are things being judged here that is not playability, and they can also judge playability to a fair margin. i never said they are bad at the game therefore they shouldn't be a judge, even said not gameplay wise. i meant that some of them don't even actively map/mod to be up to date
Keep in mind that QAT promotes BNs which promote maps, they're the highest on the hierarchy when it comes to map judging and they have the full right to enforce a few concerns if they don't find the arguments good enough. I don't get why you're judging their actions or competence for this, just try to argue against them or try to reach a compromise than complaining as that will not do anything. They didn't get there by doing nothing. i mean obviously they didn't get there by nothing, but does that mean their decisions are always correct? shouldn't people call them out when they disagree with them? are we just forced to accept their opinions just because they are qat and they worked to get that?"i think you people are looking at the map too narrowly without looking at the big picture. also for the record, ideas kinda lose their meanings if you enforce them, no?"
Ranked section is not for every single mapper's cutesy little ideas otherwise anything can pass?
Keeping in mind that everything is "so transparent", I demand that the chat-log to this discussion is publically available. Then we at least truly have a base to discuss on, because I still think that what currently hold the veto is not right. Might not be "THAT" obvious, considering you can easily influence someone by pming them with your opinion - if that happened, we'll let it be at this point, but please don't talk about it being obvious.Maridius wrote:
Let this sink in, QAT decided that this map is fundamentally flawed not just like 2 people.
Aha. Could you explain me then why standards are being pushed now on "aesthetically pleasant" maps but nothing happens on other maps, when there are extreme conceptual flaws combined with non-meta aesthetics (how you call it)? They might play ok, but I just as well have my concerns about them. And this map is just as fine, if you compare it on this level. Nothing happens, but suddenly this is a big deal? I remember that people were calling me out for having double standards, but what exactly is happening now? Hypocrisy as its finestNao Tomori wrote:
i dont get why you guys are suddenly complaining about standards being enforced when you were also the ones complaining the most vocally that standards ARENT being enforced...
It's really simple... these aren't the standards people want to see enforced... This should be obvious xD.Nao Tomori wrote:
nvm
i dont get why you guys are suddenly complaining about standards being enforced when you were also the ones complaining the most vocally that standards ARENT being enforced...
MaridiuS wrote:
Keep in mind that QAT promotes BNs which promote maps, they're the highest on the hierarchy when it comes to map judging and they have the full right to enforce a few concerns if they don't find the arguments good enough. They have just as many rights to voice their concerns, but just because they're QAT doesn't mean they're not human. What I mean is, they could collectively screw a map over they don't like because of bias. There could be a mistake. (Maybe one or some of the members didn't completely look at the map.) The other situation I can think of is the QAT members themselves aren't qualified to look at the map. They have the tag, but that doesn't mean they don't have limits or styles they're more comfortable with. I don't get why you're judging their actions or competence for this, just try to argue against them or try to reach a compromise than complaining as that will not do anything. They didn't get there by doing nothing.
Ranked section is not for every single mapper's cutesy little ideas otherwise anything can pass?
^ A chat-log or a history is something I feel we need to see. Like I said before to MaridiuS, for all we know the QAT could have collectively agreed to screw over the map or not even have a discussion about the map in the first place. Not just for this map alone, it's important we actually see the process.Irreversible wrote:
Keeping in mind that everything is "so transparent", I demand that the chat-log to this discussion is publically available. Then we at least truly have a base to discuss on, because I still think that what currently hold the veto is not right. What happened to: BN1 bubbles, BN2 veto, BN1 got blocked, BN3 can "get rid off the veto" if he explains as to why. Now you're telling me that there's something behind the stages where the mapper is being left to some ultimatium?Maridius wrote:
Let this sink in, QAT decided that this map is fundamentally flawed not just like 2 people.
I'm still waiting for the post where the QAT or Lasse lists me all these abundant overmaps that are UNRANKABLE. All the parts that will be linked because of this I will assume are so harmful to the map that I must remove them for the qat to reconsider their choice. Also all the ones left out of this list I will of course have to assume are fine for ranking. I'm very eager to see where the line goes between unrankable and rankable especially in this case.Irreversible wrote:
While I'd like to skip the spacing statement, I do agree on the overmap on the 3/4. You might be well off to reconsider that, ProBox and see what happens after - because they do have a point here.
Now you're telling me that there's something behind the stages where the mapper is being left to some ultimatium?Yeah, this is literally the system, lol. I don't really like this veto system but it's what is official now.
I'm waiting as wellPB wrote:
I'm still waiting for the post where the QAT or Lasse lists me all these abundant overmaps that are UNRANKABLE.
ProfessionalBox wrote:
I'm still waiting for the post where the QAT or Lasse lists me all these abundant overmaps that are UNRANKABLE. All the parts that will be linked because of this I will assume are so harmful to the map that I must remove them for the qat to reconsider their choice. Also all the ones left out of this list I will of course have to assume are fine for ranking. I'm very eager to see where the line goes between unrankable and rankable especially in this case.
If you want to do the job of quality assurance, then do it right and finally list up the issues that should be adressed - because the only thing I do see at this state is y'all avoiding this one question.Myx wrote:
Go by the rule of thumb that fixing the parts that were specifically pointed out (as well as instances where literally the same things are repeated) should be sufficient, unless otherwise mentioned. Best option right now is to make changes that you think are enough and then ask the vetoer and QAT for feedback.
Alright, fair enough. This means the things pointed out on Mo's post are the things to fix. Therefore, we should just fix those timestamps pointed out and any that seem to be "literal repeats". Anything else I'll take it is not, and should not be covered under the veto mediation, unless the QAT gives a further list of apparently unrankable cases.Myxomatosis wrote:
Who would have thought that not everyone agrees on which maps are fine and which shouldn't be ranked? If that'd be the case, vetos and disqualifications for subjective issues wouldn't even need to exist.
The point of mediation isn't that we get into another lengthy discussion about wether the veto is justified or not. The discussions already happened before the mediation, but the mapper and vetoing BN couldn't find an agreement, which is why we even reached this point. People requested more quality assurance from the QAT again and clearer actions taken towards controversial maps, and this is what happens now. Literally the same people who requested that are now complaining about an ultimatum being set to this map, just because the issues we see in this map don't match their understanding of low quality.
Don't get me wrong, it's good that you are discussing the map and the issues of it (even though it's likely not going to impact the mediation, as it was an unanimous decision coming from 6 QAT members and the point is that it should get fixed) but complaining about the system itself here is dumb, please stop it.
Regarding what was requested:
Providing chatlogs would be pretty useless as there wasn't much discussion at all. We judged the veto seperately first and voted, and the vote was unanimous, so there was no need for lots of discussion. Basically we all agreed on the vetoing post and what else was posted here, nobody had any objections from what I recall.Go by the rule of thumb that fixing the parts that were specifically pointed out (as well as instances where literally the same things are repeated) should be sufficient, unless otherwise mentioned. Best option right now is to make changes that you think are enough and then ask the vetoer and QAT for feedback.ProfessionalBox wrote:
I'm still waiting for the post where the QAT or Lasse lists me all these abundant overmaps that are UNRANKABLE. All the parts that will be linked because of this I will assume are so harmful to the map that I must remove them for the qat to reconsider their choice. Also all the ones left out of this list I will of course have to assume are fine for ranking. I'm very eager to see where the line goes between unrankable and rankable especially in this case.
@ProBox it seems like the only changes you need to fix are the ones listed above. Everything else can be treated as a different case unless you feel they are explicitly the same case. Otherwise as per Desp's wording, you can proceed with getting recheck.-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. 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.
- 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.
QAT veto because of over mapping. ProB thought it was kinda bs, a lot of people thought it was kinda bs. no one really knew or understood what the veto was about. It is now cleared up (i think) and all that's left is for ProB to implement some changes i guess. Drama seems to stem from creative differences between mappers involved and the QAT. That's how i understand it at least.Hula wrote:
i tried to understand this drama, but i can't. Can someone kindly tl;dr it for me please?
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.00:31:164 (1,2,3,1) - mostly mapped to faint bg noise yet huge spacing
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.I fixed everything here