1. osu! forums
  2. Beatmaps
  3. Ranked/Approved Beatmaps

show more
posted
For top diffs I meant exactly that sound 00:41:978 - not the circle section.
Insane: Also, bigger spacing for 01:34:093 - and 01:34:778 - , you made smaller.
Normal: 00:09:064 (2,1) - spacing. Make sure you spaced every next object properly, this happens sometimes.
Extra: 01:53:978 (1) - is this supposed to end on 1/8?

once you fix them catch me ingame for recheck
posted
posted
:D:):P:idea::arrow: thankiiiies!!! :D:D:D:):):):):):)
omg i so happy t_t, this is happening again
posted
BOA!
posted
Gratz!!
posted
Its gonna happening again garden xd?
posted
qualified
posted

Uta wrote:

Gratz!!
posted
net0 would be proud!
posted

Uta wrote:

Gratz!!
Thanks!!!

KittyAdventure wrote:

Uta wrote:

Gratz!!
Thanks UwU

Kisses wrote:

net0 would be proud!
yeah!! thanks too :O
posted
Shouldn't the source be listed as Pump It Up Prime?

Not actually sure of that, but that'd make more sense. Considering even Andamiro themselves refer to it this way
posted

Bakari wrote:

Shouldn't the source be listed as Pump It Up Prime?

Not actually sure of that, but that'd make more sense. Considering even Andamiro themselves refer to it this way
Oh Hello! Answering:
Well.. yes, but... I particularly don't have a conviction that I had a difference in the source, and I kept going on, considering, seeing that have a recent mapset ranked with the same source, so... I and the nominators in question on this map feel safe about that, but if want i can request a DQ to correct this oo
posted
I've no clue whether it actually changes anything or not. The safest bet is to ask a QAT member about that
posted
Bakari is right, it should be uppercase.
posted
fix fix pls, I'll requalify asap
posted

Kurai wrote:

fix fix pls, I'll requalify asap
LOL THATS FAST XD
done oo, meta fixed
posted
While I'm here, can I offer some advice?

This is not an attempt at stopping this map at all; as it sits right now it is perfectly rankable and clean enough to consider a "good" map, but...

I noticed that a lot of this map utilizes symmetrical patterning, which I think is really cool, but there are several points where you decide to use a specific form of symmetrical pattern at the detriment of following the musical notes, which I feel rather defeats the purpose of making such a pattern-based map - if the patterns are not following the music, you are not making a map, just a collection of "lol this is cool right?" patterns that don't necessarily follow the music when you could easily make symmetrical patterns that do follow the music, you just need to be better.

For more specific examples, here's a few:
  1. 00:12:493 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - Interesting juxtaposition, but the final 1/2 is still part of the little background trawl and would melodically fit better as a 1/4 slider.
  2. 00:33:750 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - No real need to NC spam this, the pairs aren't that spaced apart and the musical roll is still just an 8-note set, not four 2s.
  3. 00:45:578 (2,3,1,2,1,2) - When you follow the staticy trill under 00:45:578 (2,3,1) - but then ignore it entirely for the sake of symmetry with 00:46:093 (1,2) - , this is a blatant statement of "fuck the music, you're playing MY map", which i feel is not what a mapper should generally strive for.
  4. 00:51:578 (1,2,1) - The triple underneath 2 is so powerful and you follow it pretty much every time, but here your precious symmetry fucks it over.
  5. 00:52:264 (1,2,1,2,3) - This pattern would be amazing if it was something more like THIS, and could even more easily maintain a symmetrical pattern the same way you're doing now, but as it sits it's largely ignoring the music! a big ew to me.
  6. 01:04:607 (1) - Notes like this are 1/6, not 1/8. I'm not sure how the ranking criteria treats these at the moment, but technically the snapping is wrong on a lot of these. I'll leave it up to someone else to actually decide on this.
  7. 01:06:493 (2,1,2,3) - see symmetry strikes again - the first 2 would nominally be a triple to follow the backbeat, but you again ignore it for the sake of a symmetrical pattern that could easily be modified to still fit the music and be symmetrical.
  8. 01:25:178 (1,2,3) - Again, 2 is symmetrical despite the potential for triples to actually follow the music.
  9. 01:32:893 (2,1) - Again, 2 is symmetrical despite the potential for triples to actually follow the music.
  10. 01:33:407 (1,2,1,2,3) - same as the last time.
  11. 01:40:264 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - Normally you have a 1/4 slider starting these off-beat start rolls off, but here it's a full stream? This goes for MOST of the streams in the last chorus...
  12. 01:51:235 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1) - this is just all fucked up - the 1/4 2 should be a triple, the split double stream makes no sense, does not fit the map, and is a massive, worthless difficulty spike.
  13. 01:52:950 (1,2,1,2) - these are plain 4 rolls please stop trying to put awkwardly shoved in "inspired by hanzer but now is used so commonly incorrectly and badly that the incorrect and bad execution has become the normal definition" techniques.
  14. 01:56:721 (1) - nitpicky but imo this is more of a circle sound than a slider sound :shrug:
posted
Agree with snapping but the rest doesn't seem valid to me. I will let Kalindraz explain his position first.
posted
Again; like i said, i'm not even trying to apply suggestions - I made that post long prior to the DQ. I don't expect nor particurally care if any points are applied, but they are all valid if you ask me - there is no logical reason to force unfitting symmetrical patterns if you can create fitting symmetrical patterns.
posted
sorry for long late oo

Shiirn wrote:

While I'm here, can I offer some advice? sure.

This is not an attempt at stopping this map at all; as it sits right now it is perfectly rankable and clean enough to consider a "good" map, but...

I noticed that a lot of this map utilizes symmetrical patterning, which I think is really cool, but there are several points where you decide to use a specific form of symmetrical pattern at the detriment of following the musical notes, which I feel rather defeats the purpose of making such a pattern-based map - if the patterns are not following the music, you are not making a map, just a collection of "lol this is cool right?" patterns that don't necessarily follow the music when you could easily make symmetrical patterns that do follow the music, you just need to be better.

For more specific examples, here's a few:
  1. 00:12:493 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - Interesting juxtaposition, but the final 1/2 is still part of the little background trawl and would melodically fit better as a 1/4 slider. i don't get it, you can explain better, your words sounds a bit confusing to me =/
  2. 00:33:750 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - No real need to NC spam this, the pairs aren't that spaced apart and the musical roll is still just an 8-note set, not four 2s.
    well, this is your subjective view, right? I mean, doesn't need more/less spacing to nc that pattern, that pairs of 2 to 2(up and down and other forms) justify what I accurately hear, distinct sounds every 2 notes. NCing are appropriate to have a separation between patterns. In this sense, I think that the NCing here works good, have a lot of separation in patterns because of the instrumentation shifts(focusing on violin and the "noise/distorted sound"). i think that answer can be applied to 01:52:950 (1,2,1,2) - and 01:51:235 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1)
  3. 00:45:578 (2,3,1,2,1,2) - When you follow the staticy trill under 00:45:578 (2,3,1) - but then ignore it entirely for the sake of symmetry with 00:46:093 (1,2) - , this is a blatant statement of "fuck the music, you're playing MY map", which i feel is not what a mapper should generally strive for. fixed, my bad..
  4. 00:51:578 (1,2,1) - The triple underneath 2 is so powerful and you follow it pretty much every time, but here your precious symmetry fucks it over.
  5. 00:52:264 (1,2,1,2,3) - This pattern would be amazing if it was something more like THIS, and could even more easily maintain a symmetrical pattern the same way you're doing now, but as it sits it's largely ignoring the music! a big ew to me. reformed, fixed..
  6. 01:04:607 (1) - Notes like this are 1/6, not 1/8. I'm not sure how the ranking criteria treats these at the moment, but technically the snapping is wrong on a lot of these. I'll leave it up to someone else to actually decide on this. fixed.
  7. 01:06:493 (2,1,2,3) - see symmetry strikes again - the first 2 would nominally be a triple to follow the backbeat, but you again ignore it for the sake of a symmetrical pattern that could easily be modified to still fit the music and be symmetrical.
  8. 01:25:178 (1,2,3) - Again, 2 is symmetrical despite the potential for triples to actually follow the music.
  9. 01:32:893 (2,1) - Again, 2 is symmetrical despite the potential for triples to actually follow the music.
  10. 01:33:407 (1,2,1,2,3) - same as the last time. fixed.
  11. 01:40:264 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - Normally you have a 1/4 slider starting this off-beat start rolls off, but here it's a full stream? This goes for MOST of the streams in the last chorus... another error mine, fixed..
  12. 01:51:235 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1) - this is just all fucked up - the 1/4 2 should be a triple, the split double stream makes no sense, does not fit the map, and is a massive, worthless difficulty spike. i don't want break this pattern (01:51:578 (1,2,1,2) - ) like all did on this section (01:48:835 (1,2,1,2) - ,01:50:207 (1,2,1,2) - to placing a triplet, because that i place the 1/4 slider and not 3/4 like the previous(01:48:493 (1) - , 01:49:864 (1) - ).
  13. 01:52:950 (1,2,1,2) - these are plain 4 rolls please stop trying to put awkwardly shoved in "inspired by hanzer but now is used so commonly incorrectly and badly that the incorrect and bad execution has become the normal definition" techniques. can u affirm this sentence? well i study about pattern multiple times and i seeing multiple maps with the same pattern(i'm not trying to justify other maps into my, it's just to have a concrete base), that pattern its work good because the low bpm(175) give such time to reading without problems(unfortunately, the map was qualified for 10 hours and at that time only had 1 fc, but I believe that if it was for a longer duration would have many others fc present)
  14. 01:56:721 (1) - nitpicky but imo this is more of a circle sound than a slider sound :shrug: well, you right but, i hearing an intense sound on that point, i leaving the circle(single note) sound to inferior diffs like hard/normal/easy.


about "Again, 2 is symmetrical despite the potential for triples to actually follow the music." i said again, i don't placed the triplets because my focus it is on violin and symmetry i made 2 1/4 to make one mirrored to the other and the 1/4 can support the triplets beats.
Thank you for looking at my map. I don't have problems to fixed things and etc..
but you must imagine how hard it should be for any mapper who does something different from the comun (incomum) one having something ranked (not wanting to present any kind of drama)
I always try to avoid the fewest possible errors oo

well, I just wish you did not use offensive words (or make sarcastic/ironic comments)
i know u are good modder but your use of offensive words turn you into a bad person/modder =/

well, sorry for any english mistake
@Kurai can i imagine, You can't requalify because I did the shiirn's changes. unfortunately =/
@Namki and @Garden sorry for that mistakes if both like give another chance I would be grateful
well thats its
show more
Please sign in to reply.