Kagetsu wrote:

it might be true that 110 bpm is the original one for this song (i actually checked the tab before popping this) however, 11/8 is unsupported by the game so you will have to transcribe 11/8 to more simple time signatures (11/8 is "faster" hence why the current timing doesn't work)

Ranking Criteria wrote:

1. Uninherited (red) Timing Sections should be used to accurately map the song's timing. They should synchronize to the beats of the song as accurately as possible and use the correct time signature whenever possible. If an incorrect time signature would last for more than 2 bars, add another timing section to fix it.(...)

Kagetsu wrote:

it's not about following an official number, but rather to make things work within the game limits.

Zhuriel wrote:

while the game does not support 11/8, there is nothing unrankable in the way i've timed it according to this piece of wording in the rc as a) it is not possible to use the correct time signature and b) no incorrect time signature lasts for more than one bar.

Kagetsu wrote:

it's not about following an official number, but rather to make things work within the game limits.

squirrelpascals wrote:

there shouldn't be a need to stray away from the songs original bpm to reflect more accurate timing - based off your example in your earlier post. Your timing points seem to reflect more of an alternating 5/4, 6/4 rather than what the song was truly written to according to the tabs. I'm going to have to say I agree with Zhur on this one.

1. from bar 1 to 6, it shows a 6/4 110 bpm pace (this is what's in the map, currently)
2. from bar 7 to 12, it shows a 6/8 110 bpm pace (this is what the original composer wrote, whether it's 11 or 5+6 /8 is irrelevant, as these changes would only add more bars)
3. from bar 13 to 18, it shows a 6/4 220 bpm pace (this is what i consider a more accurate adaptation of what the composer wrote)

Kagetsu wrote:

1. from bar 1 to 6, it shows a 6/4 110 bpm pace (this is what's in the map, currently)

Kagetsu wrote:

i know you guys are attached to this "110 bpm" number and don't want to change it, but in reality the song's pace is way faster. even if you're trying to represent an 11/8 signature, 220 bpm 11/4 is proven to be more accurate.

frukoyurdakul wrote:

05:19:837 - I don't think this is flat 4/4. I haven't came up with a solution yet but I think that section needs to be fixed as well.
Secondly, the part after that kiai is also wrong (because of the similiar rhythms.)

Zhuriel wrote:

while 220 may cause all metronome beats to land on subdivisons, it also misrepresents the "pace" you seem so intent on.

Zhuriel wrote:

there are no rules in the ranking criteria stating that all metronome beats have to land on subdivisions,

Zhuriel wrote:

and there are ranked maps in 6/8 implemented as 3/4, so i see no argument why 220 11/4 is a more accurate representation of the song than 110 11/8 with a different structure.

Zhuriel wrote:

Allow me one last attempt at explaining the structure of the 11/8 meter in this song:



similar to a 12/8, each of these groupings structurally works like a beat in a 4/4, whereas that would not be the case in a 220BPM 11/4. this is why i do not consider timing at 220 to be a more accurate representation of the composition.

1. 00:01:305 -
2. 00:01:850 - this isn't even a beat in your current timing
3. 00:02:395 - more of the same
4. 00:03:214 -
5. 00:04:032 -

[TimingPoints]
1305,272.727272727273,11,1,1,70,1,0
2123,272.727272727273,11,1,1,70,1,0
2668,272.727272727273,11,1,1,70,1,0
3486,272.727272727273,11,1,1,70,1,0
4304,272.727272727273,11,1,1,70,1,0

Ranking Criteria wrote:

1. Uninherited timing points must be used to accurately map the song's time signatures. If an incorrect time signature lasts for more than one bar, a uninherited timing point must be added on the next downbeat to reset the time signature. For time signatures unsupported in the editor, metronome resets or editing of the .osu file are acceptable.

Zhuriel wrote:

a recent RC update was pointed out to me that says:

Ranking Criteria wrote:

1. Uninherited timing points must be used to accurately map the song's time signatures. If an incorrect time signature lasts for more than one bar, a uninherited timing point must be added on the next downbeat to reset the time signature. For time signatures unsupported in the editor, metronome resets or editing of the .osu file are acceptable.

therefore, my implementation is now explicitly allowed by ranking criteria.

Turquoise- wrote:

absolutely rekt

Kagetsu wrote:

true, but not exactly for the reasons you pointed. the new RC just doesn't state that the metronome should follow the beats in the song. in any case, it says something about accurately map the song's time signatures but that's now kinda vague in my eyes ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Zhuriel wrote:

not sure how explicitly allowing metronome resets is vague in any way, if anything it is vague in a good way as it allows mappers to choose which of the available inaccurate workarounds works best for them. i feel like you misunderstood my point, i never argued this implementation is accurate to the song, however i consider it more accurate and resulting in a better map than the alternative.

Kagetsu wrote:

i never said metronome resets are vague though? i'm questioning the part of Uninherited timing points must be used to accurately map the song's time signatures. it says accurately but doesn't explain what they consider accurate as you can now use a sum of correct bpm + wrong time signature which results in the metronome being off just like in this case.

dsco wrote:

i do believe, however, it makes more sense to change the time signature from 6/4 to 11/4 so that the 'correct time signature' can at least be ascertained from the timing panel, and maintain at least some level of relationship between the time signature chosen in the editor and the true time signature of the song, though this does not do anything. it should also be noted that this is done later in the map with 7/4 (instead of 4/4) starting at 06:04:331. also 06:16:091 ought to be changed to 9/4 to keep consistent with the measures / time signatures chosen before.

dsco wrote:

i can also verify that the 4/4 section int he middle is indeed 4/4, heavily syncopated groupings, though i dont agree with having truncated measures of 4/4 (starting at 05:35:510) instead of adding a red tick that says 3/4 (as would be correct in the tabulature, as i've gathered from zhuriel)

Bonsai wrote:

the the

squirrelpascals wrote:

Bonsai wrote:

the the

celerih wrote:

Hello I'm here because Zhuriel doesn't know how to talk to BNs ɿ(｡･ɜ･)ɾ

SPOILER

[ The End of Everything]

2. 00:27:897 (3) - Have this as a circle + a 1/4 slider because a reverse is too weak imo for the drums on 00:28:034 - i want to emphasize the held guitar note here and that would somewhat take away from that. i tried out a few patterns to increase emphasis on (3) with spacing and have the kick clickable but i can't really find anything that i like
3. 00:37:170 (3) - Put this a bit lower so it doesn't touch 00:36:897 (1) - would mess with the triangle pattern in a way i really don't like, alternative would be to increase spacing on the triangle but that would mess with the decreasing spacing in the pattern as well so i think this overlap is the least of the evils there are to choose from
4. 01:22:306 (1,2,3,4) - can u make these a bit more parallel or at least be at the same angle pls rotated to sit symmetrically on 01:22:851 (1) -
5. 01:23:532 (6) - I don't think there's anything to justify 6 not being grouped with 4 and 5 follows the same pattern as 00:27:079 (1,2,3) - in emphasizing bass drums
6. 03:53:602 (1) - For more impact overlap this note with the slider head of 03:52:352 (3) - i want this to follow the back-and-forth pattern of 03:51:102 (5,6,1) -
7. 04:09:102 (6,7) - Looks like a 1/4 gap because of 04:08:727 (4,5) - . Try and differentiate them a bit
8. 04:23:727 (4,5,6,7) - same as above that would be because the kickslider was added later on, moving the double a bit closer to the kickslider to differentiate
9. 05:18:335 (1,2,3,4) - Decrease distance here because pitch is going down starting pitch is lower but it switches from a descending run to an ascending one with wider intervals, so lower spacing would be unfitting imo
10. 06:39:566 (1,2,3,4,1) - Why is spacing decreasing here? rhythm guitar descending like the rest of the patterns in this section
11. 08:12:366 - What's up with the 5 greenlines here? i covered the other cymbals in the outro with sliderticks but since there isn't a slider tick here i made my own pseudo-tick with sliderslide volume manipulation

Call me back for a rebubble (:

Ohwow wrote:

00:23:534 - why did you skip this? At first, it really seemed like you're following the guitar (since it's really prominent) and all of the sudden you skipped this guitar. Even if you argue that you are following the cymbals, it still feels awkward to have a pause there when there's no pause in the music. I would've liked at least a circle stacked onto 00:23:670 (1) -
01:11:534 - ^ i focus more on the rhythm guitar here, mapping an additional note for the lead would be somewhat awkward and take away emphasis from 00:23:670 - which i consider very important since it marks the song falling back into the earlier pattern

00:36:897 (1,2,3) - why overlap (1) and (3)? it will easily look better if spaced. and why is (1) & (2) aligned while 00:36:625 (1,2) - and 00:36:352 (1,2) - are not? https://i.gyazo.com/09e16055084afd8cf12 ... 457f04.jpg this is consistent with other triangle based patterns as explained in celerih's mod response

04:08:727 (4) - there's no snare here in the music, so should remove drum-normal. like 04:23:727 (4) - there are ghost notes on the snare here so i consider this fitting
04:08:852 - on top of that, not really liking how the actual snare (which is the loudest) is mapped to slider end. the primary emphasis in this section is put on the bass, while the snare might be the loudest it is by no means the most important here

06:21:731 (5,1) - The flow here is really bad compared to the rest of the streams you did. i use the somewhat umcomfortable movement for the difference in emphasis between lead and rhythm guitar, and while this particular instance worked out a bit differently than others i think it achieves the desired effect

07:31:288 (1) - there's no snare on the sliderend. it sounds like a double hit on the snare to me which is one of the reasons i mapped short kick sliders here

07:57:698 (2) - make this a slider? again with the rhythm pauses. same reasoning. it's not required to map everything and rests are a powerful tool for adding emphasis

meh. cool stuff, but I feel like this map could be improved. Feel free to decline everything.