1. osu! forums
  2. Beatmaps
  3. Ranked/Approved Beatmaps
show more
posted

JBHyperion wrote:

That done, ctb diff is fine so std peeps feel free to go ahead.
cool~
posted
Scuttlebug isn't a farm map bubble that instead
posted

ezek wrote:

JBHyperion wrote:

That done, ctb diff is fine so std peeps feel free to go ahead.
cool~
yo dude where's my kudosu xd
posted
bubble guilty all the same
posted
please dont rank this
posted
There is a perfectly good scuttlebug family waiting for a ranking
posted
Aaa forgot about that, my bad JBH.
posted
Greetings! I have some concerns regarding this mapset.

I'm going to go straight to the point. The spacing in most of the higher difficulties is chaos. Just because the average jump is half of the screen doesn't make them any more justified as a whole, in any way. Just because you can make the common sound go halfway across the screen, does not mean you should. You may interpret the song in this way, but I can guarantee you that you'll have people disagreeing with this interpretation.

[Cookie-Triangle-Spicy-Cookie]

00:01:352 (1,2) - 00:03:337 (2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - Already from the first note you're conveying that these sounds are very intense, due to the difficulty of aiming the notes which reflect this in the map. This will ultimately end up destroying your overall potential of emphasis in the map, since everything is relative. Let me remind you that how well you accentuate something is not the same thing as how difficult it is to play something. It's only the difference between them that can accomplish this.

00:04:881 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - was a good approach in trying to differentiate parts of the song, but the spacing of it's section is extremely inconsistent, with 00:06:425 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - being completely different, despite it's musical similarities.

00:09:734 (1,1) - Momentum isn't exactly going in this direction either, and since it's the sound that is landed on in this case that determines it's prior distance, and that the sound itself doesn't sound out in the song, it is not reflecting it very well.

00:13:263 (7,8) - Honestly don't see why this should be spaced as much as it is. If you remove the note you'll notice that the sound it's reflecting is very faint, yet it has the same distance as 00:13:043 (6,7) - and 00:12:160 (2,3) - .

00:11:940 (1,2) - If you compare this with 00:13:484 (8,1) - there's also some very apparent inconsistencies.

In 00:11:940 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - , snares are actually somewhat emphasized in comparison to the other sounds, but in 00:13:925 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - these other sounds are sometimes even more spaced. Refer to 00:12:381 (3,4) - and 00:14:146 (2,3) - in comparison to 00:12:160 (2,3) - and 00:13:925 (1,2) - .

00:16:351 (3,4) - Having clearly different sounds symmetrical like this will make you lose relevance with the song. Instead, make (3) a 3/4 slider and arrange them similarly to like you did at 00:23:410 (1,2) - , using the same principles. In this case even the SV change is different, which makes little sense. Also NC.

00:17:675 (3,4) - This last sound isn't like the others, but it's not reflected in any way through the map, which I find odd.

I don't mean to ruin your patterns, but 00:19:219 (1,2,3) - and 00:12:160 (2,3,4) - are analogous measures, yet, again, their spacing is quite inconsistent to say the least.

00:20:101 (5,6) - What are you even following here. I can't hear any sound as intense as what you're making this out to be. If you're referring to the snare, how come 00:19:219 (1,2) - , and all the previous ones, differ so much? At this point I don't even know if you're ignoring the snares or not because they don't seem to hold any relevance to the map other than in the first of these patterns.

00:21:646 (4,5,6,7) - These are, once again, not the same sounds so I don't see why you'd be making a pattern like this out of them. You mapped that last sound much better at 00:15:028 (6,7) - than you did here at 00:22:087 (6,7) - , because of the clear difference in spacing in comparison to the rest.

00:22:307 (7,1) - Is spaced pretty much exactly like 00:22:528 (1,2) - or any other sound is, despite these not being the same sounds.

00:32:234 (1,2) - These are different from 00:32:676 (3,4) - . Honestly I would recommend you prioritize the song over your patterns. We are trying to reflect the songs with our maps, right?

00:31:351 (1,2) - Doesn't even sound much different from 00:32:234 (1,2) -

00:33:116 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - Yes, this is kiai. No, this does not mean you can suddenly start building up into full-screen jumps. Also isn't this the same sounds as 00:04:881 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - ? The only difference is that you decided to add audible hitsounds on all the circles to make them seem like they're meant to be more intense.

00:34:660 - The longer sounds also kind of fail being reflected here because it's all just a giant pattern of circles, which makes it really monotonous, when in reality you could have used cues in the song to make it more diverse.

00:36:204 (7) - There's a vocal here which deserves emphasis, and it seems like you have tried to convey that, but when all previous notes are distanced in the same way, this becomes very difficult to do. If the majority of other notes were clearly differentiated, for example by not all being sharp angles, or at least being in some kind of recognizable pattern, then you could have brought this out much better in accordance with the song, rather than making it look and play like a giant buildup which isn't supported by the song.

00:36:866 (2) - Also makes very little sense that this would be further away from (1) than (3) is from this, if you're truly trying to accent vocals. At the moment, and to be completely honest, they seem like random wack-a-mole to the bpm, which obviously isn't an interpretation you would appreciate of your map, isn't that right? So instead, try keeping your concepts and spacing consistent with what is heard in the song that your beatmap is following. You could even take this opportunity to use sliders rather than circles, since some beats are stronger than others.

00:38:410 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - This is just very over the top in my opinion. There's not even a beat going on here. Yes, they are prominent, and a clear buildup, but, again, not to the degree that this is made out to be. Even something like this would work much better.

Making changes to the mentioned parts will make your difficulty easier, and I would understand if this isn't something you would want, but I do not believe the map to be ready in this state, as it loses a large amount of relevance to the song. Many parts are extremely inconsistent and others simply aren't supported in the way they are mapped.

It's not only this last difficulty, though. Many of the other difficulties also have problems in these regards, and it would take a very long time for me to look over all of these in detail, so I would recommend you both thoroughly reconsider these, as well as gather more mods before pushing this forward.

Should you disagree with what is said in this post, then feel free to ask other nominators, just as I have, or bring your concerns and questions directly to me. Good luck!
posted

i guess monstratas spicy triangle isnt so spicy after all..

im hilarious
posted
lmao
posted
cookie...zi butter cookie....
posted
please reconsider the pop this is a high quality DT set with more diffs than no title thx
posted
i agree with pop tbh, forced jump to raise star rating disgusting :(
posted
Scuttlebug doesn't een have a bublbe
posted
Who is Naxess lol
posted

Ascendance wrote:

Who is Naxess lol
why does that matter your map's worst nightmare
posted
i guess it's how you look at the map


isn't this map supposed to be a jump flowy sort of map? Wasn't that it's original intentions? I kind of like it tbh :D



also free pp
posted

Naxess wrote:

Greetings! I have some concerns regarding this mapset.

I'm going to go straight to the point. The spacing in most of the higher difficulties is chaos. Just because the average jump is half of the screen doesn't make them any more justified as a whole, in any way. Just because you can make the common sound go halfway across the screen, does not mean you should. You may interpret the song in this way, but I can guarantee you that you'll have people disagreeing with this interpretation.

[Cookie-Triangle-Spicy-Cookie]

00:01:352 (1,2) - 00:03:337 (2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - Already from the first note you're conveying that these sounds are very intense, due to the difficulty of aiming the notes which reflect this in the map. This will ultimately end up destroying your overall potential of emphasis in the map, since everything is relative. Let me remind you that how well you accentuate something is not the same thing as how difficult it is to play something. It's only the difference between them that can accomplish this. Visually this sets the tone for the rest of the map because it demonstrates a visual gap you would associate with jumps later on in the map. However, the difference here is that these are slider jumps. They are much easier to land, plus due to slider-end leniency you can begin the jump to the next object at an earlier time than say a circle > circle jump. Your point would be absolutely accurate if this were a circle though.

00:04:881 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - was a good approach in trying to differentiate parts of the song, but the spacing of it's section is extremely inconsistent, with 00:06:425 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - being completely different, despite it's musical similarities. Well, I wanted some variety here, but I'm fine with making this bigger.

00:09:734 (1,1) - Momentum isn't exactly going in this direction either, and since it's the sound that is landed on in this case that determines it's prior distance, and that the sound itself doesn't sound out in the song, it is not reflecting it very well. The idea here is to force the player to slightly go back on themselves, creating a flowbreak occuring in transition from one slider to another. It's a form of emphasis that doesn't utilize jumps.

00:13:263 (7,8) - Honestly don't see why this should be spaced as much as it is. If you remove the note you'll notice that the sound it's reflecting is very faint, yet it has the same distance as 00:13:043 (6,7) - and 00:12:160 (2,3) - . Sure. Made this smaller. Also remapped this jump pattern taking into account your points from below

00:11:940 (1,2) - If you compare this with 00:13:484 (8,1) - there's also some very apparent inconsistencies. ^

In 00:11:940 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - , snares are actually somewhat emphasized in comparison to the other sounds, but in 00:13:925 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - these other sounds are sometimes even more spaced. Refer to 00:12:381 (3,4) - and 00:14:146 (2,3) - in comparison to 00:12:160 (2,3) - and 00:13:925 (1,2) - . ^

00:16:351 (3,4) - Having clearly different sounds symmetrical like this will make you lose relevance with the song. Instead, make (3) a 3/4 slider and arrange them similarly to like you did at 00:23:410 (1,2) - , using the same principles. In this case even the SV change is different, which makes little sense. Also NC. I disagree about your argument about losing song relevancy due to using the same visual for different sounds. I think it creates a consistency within the map actually. But I mapped this differenly on my lower difficulties so I'll do so here too and use a different slider design and slightly increased SV.

00:17:675 (3,4) - This last sound isn't like the others, but it's not reflected in any way through the map, which I find odd. The last sound is just like the others though. It's the 4th syllable in Cho-Co-Coo-Kie xD

I don't mean to ruin your patterns, but 00:19:219 (1,2,3) - and 00:12:160 (2,3,4) - are analogous measures, yet, again, their spacing is quite inconsistent to say the least. Since I remapped the first jump, this should be fine, but I took added measure and made the second jump feel more intuitive as well.

00:20:101 (5,6) - What are you even following here. I can't hear any sound as intense as what you're making this out to be. If you're referring to the snare, how come 00:19:219 (1,2) - , and all the previous ones, differ so much? At this point I don't even know if you're ignoring the snares or not because they don't seem to hold any relevance to the map other than in the first of these patterns. Yep. I redo'ing this pattern I decided to lessen the emphasis onto the snare.

00:21:646 (4,5,6,7) - These are, once again, not the same sounds so I don't see why you'd be making a pattern like this out of them. You mapped that last sound much better at 00:15:028 (6,7) - than you did here at 00:22:087 (6,7) - , because of the clear difference in spacing in comparison to the rest. This is simply pattern consistency. Same sound = same pattern and different sound = different pattern create a very boring map imo. But of course, it's a map that will no doubt follow the song to a tee. Feel free to disagree here, we can discuss this further as I have no trouble fixing this if necessary.

00:22:307 (7,1) - Is spaced pretty much exactly like 00:22:528 (1,2) - or any other sound is, despite these not being the same sounds. Visual spacing, and actual emphasis are very different though. Visually they can appear the same, but when you play them, the sliders are much easier to land due to slider leniency which I've explained in your first point.

00:32:234 (1,2) - These are different from 00:32:676 (3,4) - . Honestly I would recommend you prioritize the song over your patterns. We are trying to reflect the songs with our maps, right? No, I disagree with reflecting the songs with our maps. I think that's a mapping philosophy that produces bland and uninteresting maps. The pattern consistency here is quite necessary, otherwise the previous square feels out of place and unsupported. If your view is simply to map for the song, then I encourage you to try out some more creative means of mapping. You could check out my quaver map, or Nandemo Nai ya, or even Can Do, those are good examples of maps that use patterns that don't follow the song. The song doesn't call for 7 different mapping interpretations in Can Do, and it doesn't call for left/right mapping styles in Nandemo Nai ya, yet using these concepts create really imaginative ways of expressing the song past simply following it. I guess this paragraph is concerned with addressing your philosophy though, and not so much this pattern.

00:31:351 (1,2) - Doesn't even sound much different from 00:32:234 (1,2) - ^

00:33:116 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - Yes, this is kiai. No, this does not mean you can suddenly start building up into full-screen jumps. Also isn't this the same sounds as 00:04:881 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - ? The only difference is that you decided to add audible hitsounds on all the circles to make them seem like they're meant to be more intense. I buffed the previous jump to create a better consistency here. In any case though these are not full screen jumps really. They only build up to full screen jumps on 00:37:749 (6,7) - unless you consider vertical full screen jumps in your definition (personally vertical jumps are much easier tho). Anyways, this is a very common jump pattern I've utilized in many of my maps, and I would like to keep this because of its relation to the difficulty's name too xD. Here, the goal isn't to create emphasis with every other note mapping to a snare, its to create consistency in spacing, with an emphasis on when the patterns diverge, in order to emphasize all of 00:35:984 (6,7,8) - . Emphasis doesn't always have to be self-contained in one particular jump. This is the idea of foregrounding, where a specific pattern is set up to be the same so as to foreground the divergence (which happens to map to elmo's woah! as well as wind up the spacing for the final 6 jumps).

00:34:660 - The longer sounds also kind of fail being reflected here because it's all just a giant pattern of circles, which makes it really monotonous, when in reality you could have used cues in the song to make it more diverse. Diversity is not a good idea here. Consistency is better for reasons I explained earler. Also, if you want diversity, usually you want to have a reason for the diversity, ie to foreground a certain sound that you plan on utilizing. The reason youre giving for switching rhythms is simply for "more diversity" which isn't a strong argument.

00:36:204 (7) - There's a vocal here which deserves emphasis, and it seems like you have tried to convey that, but when all previous notes are distanced in the same way, this becomes very difficult to do. If the majority of other notes were clearly differentiated, for example by not all being sharp angles, or at least being in some kind of recognizable pattern, then you could have brought this out much better in accordance with the song, rather than making it look and play like a giant buildup which isn't supported by the song. As I've hopefully explained above.

00:36:866 (2) - Also makes very little sense that this would be further away from (1) than (3) is from this, if you're truly trying to accent vocals. At the moment, and to be completely honest, they seem like random wack-a-mole to the bpm, which obviously isn't an interpretation you would appreciate of your map, isn't that right? So instead, try keeping your concepts and spacing consistent with what is heard in the song that your beatmap is following. You could even take this opportunity to use sliders rather than circles, since some beats are stronger than others. Same idea about foregrounding 00:37:749 (6,7) - . Also emphasizing every note correctly in big jumps like this is not a good idea imo. The jumps currently contain similar DS structures, i don't want to emphasize them too much because when dealing with large jumps its much better to be consistent. Expressing emphasis through individual jump patterns is usually a good idea to maintain in simpler jumps but if you look at jumpy 6+ star maps, generally there is very little specific spacing change within jumps. The majority comes from the pattern holisitically becoming bigger.

00:38:410 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - This is just very over the top in my opinion. There's not even a beat going on here. Yes, they are prominent, and a clear buildup, but, again, not to the degree that this is made out to be. Even something like this would work much better.
It's a bit over the top, but I quite enjoy it. I already discussed this with a few people and nerfed the spacing from the quaver jumps that used to occur here. This is the highest difficulty and the BPM is quite low so the jumps are good for challenging players.

Making changes to the mentioned parts will make your difficulty easier, and I would understand if this isn't something you would want, but I do not believe the map to be ready in this state, as it loses a large amount of relevance to the song. Many parts are extremely inconsistent and others simply aren't supported in the way they are mapped.

It's not only this last difficulty, though. Many of the other difficulties also have problems in these regards, and it would take a very long time for me to look over all of these in detail, so I would recommend you both thoroughly reconsider these, as well as gather more mods before pushing this forward.

Should you disagree with what is said in this post, then feel free to ask other nominators, just as I have, or bring your concerns and questions directly to me. Good luck!
[]

In summary, it looks like the main points of contention are:

  1. 00:01:352 (1,2) - These jumps are too big. I believe they are fine since slider-slider jumps are much easier than similar circle > slider jumps due to how you can begin the jump earlier on a slider, as well as the slider leniency allowing more room to prepare the jump.
  2. 00:09:734 (1) - Not following momentum. My argument is that i'm using transitional flowbreak to create emphasis.
  3. 00:17:896 (4) - This doesn't seem to emphasis anything. My argument is that it's for the 4th syllable in Choco Cookie.
  4. 00:21:646 (4,5,6,7) - 4/5 and 6/7 are different sounds so they should have different patterns associated with them. My argument is just pattern consistency.
  5. 00:32:234 (1,2,3,4) - This not being a good pattern due to 3/4 being very different from 1/2 in terms of sound. My argument is pattern consistency.
  6. 00:33:116 - Spacing these triangles similarly does not create note-specific emphasis. My argument is that I prefer consistency here in terms of both rhythm and spacing in order to make the divergence from this pattern more noticeable and create emphasis around that. Namely, setting up the pattern for 00:35:984 (6,7) - .
  7. 00:38:410 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - Being over the top. My argument is, it's a low bpm song and I want to challenge players. This is not hard to land. I'm open to suggestions that maintain my intention of challenging the player though.

[]

Thanks for the mod! I was expecting a bubble pop so I had some alternatives planned. Luckily the major patterns you suggested were part of them. I'd like to hear your opinions on those aforementioned points where we ended up disagreeing on. Generally, your view on mapping seems to be very text-book, as in strong sounds should be mapped to jumps/emphasis, and if something sounds different it should be mapped differently. I hope we can come to some consensus.
posted

Monstrata wrote:

Thanks for the mod! I was expecting a bubble pop
maybe that's a sign u should probably not do what you're trying to do...
posted
To be honest, I don't know why people make such a big deal/problem over supposed "pp jumps" or really difficult for no reason. If a map is structured fine with difficulty in the map being relatively more or less difficult in relation to other parts of the song and it has all the other bits and bobs that makes a map a decent map, I don't think it's such a big deal that "HOYL PP JUMPS, UNRANKABLE SHIT MAP"...

In other news, personally I think in "Spicy Cookie", if you have the build up over here 00:33:116 - becoming so highly spaced, the verses over at 00:11:940 - should be spaced a bit more because its a bit disorienting for the most memorable and (imo) most important/intense part of the song having much less spacing than the majority of the build up.
show more
Please sign in to reply.