forum

Alfakyun. x Camellia - calling

posted
Total Posts
256
show more
Topic Starter
ProfessionalBox

-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.
Natteke desu
while map is not my cup of tea, veto reason is tea out of my cup tbh





that was moment of my fame which i screwed
Mekki
I have been following this thread for some time now and I feel like this map does very well on showing up contrast. The patterns are nicely designed and are coherent to the song, allow me to show some examples:

01:20:137 (2,1) - spacing contrast is actually rly obvious here, the kiai is starting and the spacing is high enough
03:03:433 (1,1,1,2,1,2) - same.. a great entrance to the kiai 03:03:920 (1) - the emphasys is not here ofc 03:03:271 (3,1) - but it happens here already
***01:05:218 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - there is already a sharp cursor movement going on from the red tick to the white one, and spacing is still big from red to white, so constrast is also represented rly well on this part
00:36:353 (1,2,3) - same thing, i can't understand why you think this has a bad contrast concerning the red ticks, the intensity is expressed really well with the use of different rhythm and bigger spacing.
then, just check kiai a bit closer
01:22:731 (1,2,1,2,3) - good contrast again, the pitch 01:23:380 (3) - is definietly higher here. and there are so many instances just like here.

Also, keep in mind the explanations ProfBox made! They seems to justify the veto well enough to me, there are many different interpretations to a song, I believe he just made his. With all of this said, I also do not agree with the veto.
WORSTPOLACKEU

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.
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.
Sorry but I think you can't just deny ProBox like that, you can't just say you don't agree with the style it's mapped after he explained why he did stuff numerous times. That's just kind of rude to me. He already explained why he does stuff and if you don't agree with it, it's just you, as long as his explanation makes sense, and there is a clear logic in the song and consistency + appropriate quality, this should not be denied ranking the way it was.

For me the map is a bit overspaced but nothing new in this game, the rhythm and spacing "flaws" are consistent which clearly indicates that to being the idea of the map, emphasizing stuff in reversed polarity but giving the same effect(I actually think the idea is pretty cool).

What is nonsensical in this situation is the veto.
Monstrata

-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:

  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.

    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.
  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.
    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.
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.
WORSTPOLACKEU
^
+1 Monstrata
"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."
UndeadCapulet
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
Topic Starter
ProfessionalBox

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 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.
Hollow Delta
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.
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.
MaridiuS

Bubblun wrote:

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.
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.
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.


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.

"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? "

: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.

ProfessionalBox wrote:

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.
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.

:arrow: 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.

MaridiuS wrote:

03:15:271 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - same concern here.
This follows the piano melody on the background that is gradually rising in pitch.

:arrow: 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) - 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).

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.
anna apple
best of luck pbox <3
diraimur

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? "

: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?

This follows the piano melody on the background that is gradually rising in pitch.

:arrow: 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.
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
: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 challenging
That 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 what
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.

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 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?
Nao Tomori
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...
diraimur

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?
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.
Irreversible

Maridius wrote:

Let this sink in, QAT decided that this map is fundamentally flawed not just like 2 people.
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.

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?

Nao 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...
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 finest

Towards the "problems" themselves:

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.

I think you fail to understand what contrast is, I can't put it differently. There were many examples as to how the contrast is given in this map, so please take a look at them and reconsider your statement. This is definitely a point which should not justify this veto, because this is a "problem" which isn't one.

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.

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.
Voli
I'm with Irre on those one. Contrast isn't a problem in this map, I can name many spots that clearly demonstrate that this map uses concepts of contrast, some examples here picked from a randomly selected 30-second excerpt in the map.

  1. 02:07:650 (1,1,2,3,1,2,3) -
  2. 02:18:191 (3,4,5,6,7,1) -
  3. 02:20:461 (3,4,1,2,1,2,3,4) -
  4. 02:22:083 (5,6,7,1,2) - (angle emphasis)
  5. 02:29:542 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - big jumps here are in arguably stronger part of the song, dont see an issue here at all
Stop overly convoluting and overexaggerating your ''veto posts'' when these are non-issues. Post the actual issues without all the unnecessary stuff.

Get rid of the overmaps and this should be fine to go.
Monstrata

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...
It's really simple... these aren't the standards people want to see enforced... This should be obvious xD.
Hollow Delta

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?

Irreversible wrote:

Maridius wrote:

Let this sink in, QAT decided that this map is fundamentally flawed not just like 2 people.
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?
^ 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.
MaridiuS
irre, isn't bubblun third BN by that logic, as compromise couldn't be made so was a QAT called or something of the like.
Topic Starter
ProfessionalBox

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.
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.

It's not like this is my first time having overmapped triplets or singular circles (the 3/4 sliders may be cutting it, fine I get that, but it was said that the map has abundant overmapping) so I have no clue as a normal mapper, who holds no bn or qat authority, of where the line goes : - ). With a list we can move on with this map since the mediation is absolute isn't it.
Izzywing
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. tbh just delete vetos

https://osu.ppy.sh/help/wiki/People/Bea ... atmap_Veto
Irreversible
What instances do we have to call that something finally happens here?

PB wrote:

I'm still waiting for the post where the QAT or Lasse lists me all these abundant overmaps that are UNRANKABLE.
I'm waiting as well
Krfawy
Objection your honor yet I would like to say that ARs in Aia's Grave and toybot's Largo are absolutely too low for such densely packed constructions that happen to display lots of notes at the same time. I would like to request higher values (around AR4.0-5.0 for Aia's difficulty and AR6 for toybot's) in order to let the players follow objects on the screen in an easier manner.

BTW I am not sure if the thing in the hardest difficulty has been mentioned as there is way too much tl;dr in the thread for me to read (especially when I am not a BN that would have to do that in order to keep the ranking procedures unbroken etc.), however, 02:10:245 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - this is really bad to catch in terms of rhythmicality. As long as I understand that the slider here is a little bit longer so people can rest from the continuous clicking the very stream should probably start from here 02:10:407 - as the very streamable sound starts from here and not from the very sliderend here 02:10:488 - Now it is really hard for me to start streaming as I get lost in clicking, especially when the pace of the song is rather quick and it would be wiser to end the slider 1/4 earlier than now.

Also, maybe it is just me but for me it is really hard to hear/notice the very streamable sounds before 02:36:191 (3) - this note. The very one I have just linked starts with the very noise that is unavoidably loud and audible (the girl going "ayyy-YH" or however this could be described) and the next ones are very easy to catch for the player, at least for me. Nevertheless, the previous ones (02:36:028 (1,2) - ) are not thaaaaaaat intuitive and I wonder if it is possible to somehow avoid mapping it as a part of the stream.

03:31:649 (4) - And is there any possibility to CTRL+G it in order to make a nice flow with the very slider before?

Sorry for disturbing, I couldn't help myself writing my opinion on the mappus. owo

P.S.: 02:52:731 (1) - Nice D pattern you've mapped there you naughty naughty boy! o3o
Nozhomi
Bored

last diff :
  1. 00:27:758 (4) - What are you supposed to follow ignoring 00:27:920 - this beat ? Skipping vocal and drum seems not right whatsoever.
  2. 00:57:272 (2) - I don't think a circle works for a long sound like this. Would rather use a 1/1 slider like for 00:57:758 (6) - it would make more sense.
  3. 01:19:001 (1) - Vocal seems to stop at 01:19:650 - , would also fits more the 1/4 rhythm present here. If you do that, obviously add a circle on 01:19:731 - .
  4. 01:33:272 - Feels wrong to ignore vocal when you go totally for them after for stuff like 01:34:569 - .

About overmapped stuff like 01:34:569 - , I don't think it's overmapped, there's a sound here indeed, but rather wrong supported sound. Anyone would feel more confortable to click on a louder beat like 00:56:137 - than smth on the background really far, at least when that sound isn't supported before since it follow vocal and drum for 00:55:812 (1) - .

Feel free to ignore this if that bother you, I was just looking around~
Myxo
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.

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.


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.
Irreversible
The only thing that is dumb is your post. Nothing more, nothing less.

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.
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.
diraimur
it's kinda weird that you people want them to fix issues yet no one gives exact precise parts which should be changed. i mean i kinda agree with that random 3/4 rhythm being overmapped but if they fixed that would it really make it rankable? where are other overmapped parts? like i don't know how are you people are expecting them to "fix" their map if you can't even tell which parts. don't just say its fundamentally wrong too, because i'm pretty sure we both know that isn't the case.
Monstrata

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.

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.
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.

-Mo- wrote:

  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.
@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.
Myxo
Monstrata understood it now, what's so hard for you others to understand? Fix the specific examples that were mentioned in the post, then ask for a check if it's fine. Nowhere was it mentioned that the overmaps apply to whole sections or something like that.
Irreversible
What is so hard for you to understand that 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. is one of the most bs reasons I've ever heard in my life?

But we'll leave it at that. It's ProBox' turn now.
Hula
i tried to understand this drama, but i can't. Can someone kindly tl;dr it for me please?
Nimagan

Hula wrote:

i tried to understand this drama, but i can't. Can someone kindly tl;dr it for me please?
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.
Topic Starter
ProfessionalBox
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

Ok this one I don't get. Am I supposed to make a huge spinner mapping the vocals then? The way its arranged even emphasises the loudest sound at 00:31:488 (3) -

00:36:353 (1,2) - emphasis on red tick with no sound yet is nearly halfway across the screen

I fixed this by swapping the order of slider and circle, now emphasis is where it should be

01:05:218 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - which has no emphasis on red ticks yet are 1>2 half-screens.

I take it the issue here is the half-screen spacing as that is how this reads out. I nerfed the spacing by atleast 30%

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

I take it the map is good to go now given how nothing else was posted
hehe
al dente
Lasse
it's a bit better overall now
00:31:164 (1,2) - why not just use a slider here then? I think lower tapping density would also nicely contrast it with 00:32:785 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - when melody gets more intense
01:25:326 (5) - is still kinda weird (pretty sure it was mentioned before but got lost in the dicsussion), since the whole kiai is so vocal+drumheavy, and this suddenly completely ignores vocal on 01:25:488 -

01:51:839 (2,6) - think you forgot to hs some notes in this stream, feels pretty weird to play like that since some notes give only minimal feedback
02:36:677 (1,2,3,4) - volume change is a bit too extreme feedback wise, feels like I'm not even hitting the last few, could do sth like -10% each nc starting from 70% at 02:36:028 - or something similar
02:53:785 - should have drum finish or something cause right now you hitsound 1/2 rhythm but map 1/4 which feels rly off here

while I still disagree with most parts of the map I guess you can go on with it after replying to these points since the biggest issues got fixed (at least partially)
Topic Starter
ProfessionalBox
changed everything that was mentioned.
Hollow Delta
Good to go.
Wesley
Before someone is gonna qualify this map, you might want to save the "Joey's Moderato" difficulty in the editor since the star rating is bugged in CtB (showing up as 9.06* while it actually is 4.77*), this is a bug caused by incorrect formatting in the .osu file (probably because of hitsound copying).

https://osu.ppy.sh/beatmapsets/519154/d ... ll#/276615 happened in this map as well for reference
Topic Starter
ProfessionalBox
just remove ctb gamemode and we good to go
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply