Broly wrote:

Not sure if it's just me but, the timing feels a bit off, the notes are a bit late.

Sotarks wrote:

Broly wrote:

Not sure if it's just me but, the timing feels a bit off, the notes are a bit late.

Timing has been changed already. Also maybe you play with the Old mp3..

Alphabet wrote:

Just want to drop a few things about the highest diff I'm concerned about

Kalitark's Hibike

General

1. Any specific reason to why this diff is OD9.3? It's a little overkill don't you think? It also makes a pretty large jump in OD from the 5.52* diff which is OD8.7. If this was addressed before than that's okay, I just don't like the idea of a slow(ish) bpm map having such a high OD. Also remember that the second half of the map is a massive BPM change and it'll throw several people off. Making this map have such a small hit error just makes it so much worse and it's not helpful really. The only reason you've probably done this is to give the map more pp which is somewhat acceptable, but honestly is a bad mentality.

Mappu

1. 00:07:977 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - I really don't like how weirdly this plays out, I was expecting a similar version to the first set of 1,2 jumps (00:05:397 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - ) since it uses emphasis based on small DS. Having medium ranged DS on the next pair of notes completely ruin the emphasis of these jumps when you want the exact opposite.
2. 00:10:558 (1,2,3,4) - Why are these jumps spaced out so similar when you give the loud drums a much bigger DS on the next pattern (00:13:139 (1,2) - )? It looks weird and plays pretty weirdly since by introducing the small DS, you're giving the player an incentive to expect the next time the pattern appears to be the exact same so they'll under-aim the jumps. It feels pretty daft overall.
3. 00:28:623 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - Shouldn't this whole pattern be descending in DS? Atm it's everywhere and isn't structured at all compared to 00:29:913 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - . If you don't agree, at least change 00:28:623 (1,2,3,4,5) - since there's a random huge jump on 4,5 that doesn't seem justified at all. Deserves a change imo
4. 00:40:235 (7) - This should have a NC imo to introduce the new combo scheme of having one every big white tick. This is also justified by having exactly the same spacing as the patterns right ahead.
5. 00:43:945 (10,1) - I get that you're trying to be consistent with the triplets in the rhythm here, but every triple but this one is viable in the song and is clearly heard. This one on the other hand, is barely audible and kinda doesn't make sense because you've focused on nothing but the foreground (which is the vocals and the loud snares) up until this point (e.g. 00:32:494 (5,6) - , 00:28:139 (7,8,9,1) - )
6. 00:48:461 (1) - 00:48:945 (1) - These shouldn't be NCs, the 1/2 jumps all use a NC at every big white tick. If anything, the jumps should be using a more frequent DS than this little section here, it's no where near as intense as the loud drums and that's shown through the mapping too, why not have both to clarify to the player? It just makes more sense.
7. 00:56:696 (2) - This isn't really important at all but this is the only type of hook slider in the whole diff and it's at a random place in the song, no key changes or anything.
8. 01:01:726 (3,1) - This is inconsistent because the finish is under-emphasized when you give it a bigger DS later on at 01:06:936 (2,3,1) - , 01:08:732 (2,3) - etc.
9. 01:12:145 (1,2,3,4,5) - Shouldn't this have a NC at 01:12:684 (4) - or smth since you have the NC change at 01:08:193 (2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,4,1,2,3) - ? If not, then it all of these patterns should have the same, consistent NC as everything else.
10. 01:14:840 (1) - There is no justification to this NC other than it looks nicer. Up to you if you wanna change
11. 01:17:355 (1,2,3) - I don't like 3 being stacked with 1 since there is no reason for it to be there. The lyrics are different and the tone of the song is slightly lower. Why not have 3 spaced slightly lower? This will give the jumps after more of a punch and then it'll be justified with the actual song.
12. 01:20:753 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1) - To me this is emphasized strangely. 01:20:932 (2,1) - & 01:21:292 (2,1) - sounds like they should be the ones with higher DS here instead of the current spacing you follow (01:21:112 (1,2) - 01:21:472 (1,2) - ). With the drums increasing in intensity, they would be more represented with the proposed DS changes.
    
    Overall I think some of the emphasis used could be polished a little more, especially with 01:20:753 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1) - since sometimes you ignore the intensity increasing however sometimes you do. It's best to be consistent with these types of things since it gives the player one incentive to aim bigger instead of them remembering when the larger spacing comes.

Alphabet wrote:

Just want to drop a few things about the highest diff I'm concerned about

[Kalitark's Hibike]

General

1. Any specific reason to why this diff is OD9.3? It's a little overkill don't you think? It also makes a pretty large jump in OD from the 5.52* diff which is OD8.7. If this was addressed before than that's okay, I just don't like the idea of a slow(ish) bpm map having such a high OD. Also remember that the second half of the map is a massive BPM change and it'll throw several people off. Making this map have such a small hit error just makes it so much worse and it's not helpful really. The only reason you've probably done this is to give the map more pp which is somewhat acceptable, but honestly is a bad mentality. osu! is actually a challenging rythmn game, and on a rythmn game you need to be accurate to fit the music intensity propelly. Also, the diff Kalitarks' Hibike is the last diff of this spread which is the most challenging one, I want a High OD to match first of all with the star rating and the pattering i'm using in the map, and also for the reasons i gave you above. High OD means as well "well rewarded", a player with a good accuracy on this difficulty will be well rewarded with some performance point accurate with the play. So yeah I want to keep the current OD if possible, there're no reasons for me to change it.

Mappu

1. 00:07:977 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - I really don't like how weirdly this plays out, I was expecting a similar version to the first set of 1,2 jumps (00:05:397 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - ) since it uses emphasis based on small DS. Having medium ranged DS on the next pair of notes completely ruin the emphasis of these jumps when you want the exact opposite. This pattern is just a small back&fourth gimmick for those rythmn, it plays well and I have no reason to change it since it doesn't affect the playability of the map.
   
2. 00:10:558 (1,2,3,4) - Why are these jumps spaced out so similar when you give the loud drums a much bigger DS on the next pattern (00:13:139 (1,2) - )? It looks weird and plays pretty weirdly since by introducing the small DS, you're giving the player an incentive to expect the next time the pattern appears to be the exact same so they'll under-aim the jumps. It feels pretty daft overall.first of all the difference between 00:10:558 (1,2) - and 00:13:139 (1,2) - this is that the second one's drums are louder + they have vocals snapped on them and I want to give my spacing a build up. The other jumps of this pattern are here to follow the constant rythmn of the drums + the vocals.
   
3. 00:28:623 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - Shouldn't this whole pattern be descending in DS? Atm it's everywhere and isn't structured at all compared to 00:29:913 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - . If you don't agree, at least change 00:28:623 (1,2,3,4,5) - since there's a random huge jump on 4,5 that doesn't seem justified at all. Deserves a change imo I actually don't agree at all since this whole patterns has really strong vocals, and imo they are not deceasing, and I can here constant 1/2 drum rythmn, nerfing this pattern won't fit the the consistance of the diff.
   
4. 00:40:235 (7) - This should have a NC imo to introduce the new combo scheme of having one every big white tick. This is also justified by having exactly the same spacing as the patterns right ahead. as you can see in most the the map I like to nc every 2 downbeats, and the reason is simple : acess to a better readability to follow my jump patterns by keeping the following points, and to NC every new vocals patterning. This is not a rule to nc every downbeat, am I wrong ?
   
5. 00:43:945 (10,1) - I get that you're trying to be consistent with the triplets in the rhythm here, but every triple but this one is viable in the song and is clearly heard. This one on the other hand, is barely audible and kinda doesn't make sense because you've focused on nothing but the foreground (which is the vocals and the loud snares) up until this point (e.g. 00:32:494 (5,6) - , 00:28:139 (7,8,9,1) - ) every triplet, or 1/4 rythmns are barely noticable in this song, your issue here is valid imo, but here i want some variability in my 1/4 patterns, using triplets everywhere will make the playability a bit lame, having variations 1/4 is always better. It's like mapping a deathstream, sometime you put kicksliders to kill the rythmns or emphasis 1/2 beats that's barely stronger than the 1/4, it's just a case of variation here, so i'll keep my kicksliders. also i wanted more emphasis on 00:43:784 (9,1) - by using spacing according to the 1/4 sliders.
   
6. 00:48:461 (1) - 00:48:945 (1) - These shouldn't be NCs, the 1/2 jumps all use a NC at every big white tick. If anything, the jumps should be using a more frequent DS than this little section here, it's no where near as intense as the loud drums and that's shown through the mapping too, why not have both to clarify to the player? It just makes more sense. is it written somewhere that those can't be NC? as you can see those 2 patterns 00:47:977 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - are the same, but rotated it a bit, to have a better readability and better visuals NC'ing the beggining of your gimmicks is always well apreciate gameplay wise, also focusing on drums to build up the DRUM+VOCAL intensity after it.
   
   
   I will reply from now for kalibe since he told me he disagree with what you are saying, and I do aswell.. So let me reply propely to this at his place anyway, since Kalibe and I anyway has almost same point of view mapping wise.
   
7. 00:56:696 (2) - This isn't really important at all but this is the only type of hook slider in the whole diff and it's at a random place in the song, no key changes or anything. I don't agree since the actual shape of this slider offer you a nice circle flow to the next transition.
   
8. 01:01:726 (3,1) - This is inconsistent because the finish is under-emphasized when you give it a bigger DS later on at 01:06:936 (2,3,1) - , 01:08:732 (2,3) - etc.This is not a thing, because like voice is not such loud as the previous ones, and by keeping 1/2 key spamming for a jump before, you already feel the intensity when you hit that slider. And I know Kalibe does lots of this kind of stuff.
   
9. 01:12:145 (1,2,3,4,5) - Shouldn't this have a NC at 01:12:684 (4) - or smth since you have the NC change at 01:08:193 (2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,4,1,2,3) - ? If not, then it all of these patterns should have the same, consistent NC as everything else. the second pattern has a rythmn break that's why he did a nc, to have better readability when you break the rythmn. Also ncing what you mentionned is subjective, no actual need to do that.
   
10. 01:14:840 (1) - There is no justification to this NC other than it looks nicer. Up to you if you wanna change You replied for me! It looks nicer indeed, but not only because of that it's also because it's not the same rythmn as 01:14:301 (1,2) - have, so it looks nicer and player can't missread the overlap.
    
11. 01:17:355 (1,2,3) - I don't like 3 being stacked with 1 since there is no reason for it to be there. The lyrics are different and the tone of the song is slightly lower. Why not have 3 spaced slightly lower? This will give the jumps after more of a punch and then it'll be justified with the actual song. "yuwuki.." feels like the ki is in the same section of this vocal pattern, having the same movement back and fourth for a jump build up is a nice thing to introduce the next transition, so yeah keeping that stacked.
    
12. 01:20:753 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1) - To me this is emphasized strangely. 01:20:932 (2,1) - & 01:21:292 (2,1) - sounds like they should be the ones with higher DS here instead of the current spacing you follow (01:21:112 (1,2) - 01:21:472 (1,2) - ). With the drums increasing in intensity, they would be more represented with the proposed DS changes. It could be, but it's just constants drums here, spacing don't affect it so much, he's going for a V flow here which is pretty cool to emphasis drum rythmns like that, emphasis is correct anyways here.
    
    Overall I think some of the emphasis used could be polished a little more, especially with 01:20:753 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1) - since sometimes you ignore the intensity increasing however sometimes you do. It's best to be consistent with these types of things since it gives the player one incentive to aim bigger instead of them remembering when the larger spacing comes. I know what you are trying to say, and I can valid that. But what i know is your emphasis modding is pretty subjective and you can interpret emphasis differently it depends on how do you want to interpret the music by your mapping.

Venix wrote:

00:17:010 (6,7) - I can't understand why you placed here spacing large like this. It doesn't emphasise ground on which you focused previously. For example 00:16:365 (4,5) - here you placed small spacing, because rythm is quite low, but spacing between 00:16:848 (5,6,7) - these objects can't be the same, because you've stronger rythm 00:17:010 (6) - here. But look for 00:32:332 (4,5) - this. It seems very undermapped, because rythm is stronger than previous one for which you've used higher spacing and this make no sense at all. These are more examples for spacing problems, but I'm pointing these ones with hope that you'll see what I mean. This kind of patterning is called a "build up", as you can see 00:16:365 (4) - the vocals are starting lower, 00:17:010 (6) - and accelerate here, and ends 00:17:494 (7) - here and goes louder. Same here 00:32:332 (4) - i emphasized this instead of 00:32:494 (5) - because I felt like vocals has more emphasis power than the kick here.

00:52:026 (1,2,3) - Here flow is a bit harsh and uncomfortable. I think it can be a bit smoother angle between objects here, because it plays very weird. sharp angles do sometimes gives more emphasis that you think, and it will create a nice v flow after it, so basicly this will not be changed.

Bubblun wrote:

Hey, I was told about this and I'd like to hear your reasoning for some decisions.

I've only looked at the last diff btw.

00:24:590 (5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13) - What's supporting the taps here? It's the same rhythm as 00:21:687 (4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11) - There's 2 issues I have with this decisions. One being you used a different concept to map a repeated section. This part is no different than the first, so there's no need for a new concept yet.
Also is the combination of hits with the circles. 00:25:235 (9,10,11) - Here the intensity is different on each circle. 9 and 11 share the same intensity, but 10 is more subtle, yet they share the same distance and have a pattern that suggest they're all the same intensity. It seems like you've acknowledged this with your hitsounds, but not through the mapping. Since this is just a repeat of the first part, you could just recreate the same concept since it's nothing new.It's just really simple to justify this pattern man,00:21:687 (4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11) - this is the first vocal section of the drum build up / vocal pattern... so I don't want to full jump this section because 00:24:590 (5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13) - here as you can see the vocals are increasing, so I want to build up this section with intense jump, that's all, also every notes has 1/2 constant rythmns supporting those. So I won't change this because I want to keep my built up emphasis.

00:33:784 (1,2) - 1 ends on a beat stronger than 2, because of that the rhythm is inaccurate. The priority on the end of 1 is stronger than 2, the player is left confused as sliders typically start on strong beats. Same issue with 00:34:913 (3,4) - Except here you used a longer slider to show the exaggeration, but what exaggeration? All the exaggeration is on 1, yet you split it into 2 notes which it isn't. I already explained that in the mod above, I want to give more intensity on the vocals but still following the drums rythmn wise. 00:34:913 (3) - this note is the last vocal of this section, so I want to emphasis it but still following 00:35:074 (4) - claps like this one anyway. spacing everything would've been a mess because the player don't know what is propelly emphasized anyway. So rythmn is correct since i'm following all the rythmns (vocals + drums) and spacing is ok aswell since i want to focus more on vocals.

Also http://puu.sh/v9wrn/e03aa51f3a.jpg visual issue 00:35:558 (5,6) - here. It would look nicer if the slider was lined up with the lines. "Visual issue" ?? Wat.. It's just aesthetics dude, i have no problem with this visuals.

00:37:655 (5,6,7,8) - I have questions about your patterning here. The first slider is mapped to the instruments, while the next 3 sliders are mapped to the lyrics. Despite the differences in where the sounds are coming from, you mapped them all as if they're coming from the same instrument. You need to contrast with a difference concept / pattern at 00:37:977 (6,7,8) - I can agree with you but I wanted a build up by using the V flow spacing, to catch the vocals correctly, and the drums here was part of this pattern, since i didn't decide to NC it.. I like to change my flow when I NC a note.

00:38:865 (9) - This 1/4 jump has no support from the music. Yea it's there, but because it's stacked on 1 it's grouped with it. You're better of having that circle under the head of 9. Do you think so? I hear 1/4, I hear hard drums and I hear loud vocals, what tells you I can use this spacing ? Not fixing that.

Overall I don't think the set is ready yet. It's needs some more polishing. I don't think, according to your modding, you are qualify enough to judge if a map is not polished enough to be ready. Your mods are only really subjective reasons, and personnal opinions. Which is not wrong tho, but it's not the kind of mod you want for qualified maps. Every maps can't apply opinions of everyones, the mapper has priority on it since it's his way to interpret the song by his mapping.
Good luck though. Thanks for modding!

Bubblun wrote:

Hey, I was told about this and I'd like to hear your reasoning for some decisions.

I've only looked at the last diff btw.

00:24:590 (5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13) - What's supporting the taps here? It's the same rhythm as 00:21:687 (4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11) - There's 2 issues I have with this decisions. One being you used a different concept to map a repeated section. This part is no different than the first, so there's no need for a new concept yet.
Also is the combination of hits with the circles. 00:25:235 (9,10,11) - Here the intensity is different on each circle. 9 and 11 share the same intensity, but 10 is more subtle, yet they share the same distance and have a pattern that suggest they're all the same intensity. It seems like you've acknowledged this with your hitsounds, but not through the mapping. Since this is just a repeat of the first part, you could just recreate the same concept since it's nothing new.

00:33:784 (1,2) - 1 ends on a beat stronger than 2, because of that the rhythm is inaccurate. The priority on the end of 1 is stronger than 2, the player is left confused as sliders typically start on strong beats. Same issue with 00:34:913 (3,4) - Except here you used a longer slider to show the exaggeration, but what exaggeration? All the exaggeration is on 1, yet you split it into 2 notes which it isn't. This rhythm is fine. You see this a lot in maps nowadays. It's just a different rhythm choice here, which is consistent with the rhythm choice in the map. There are always many ways to express a song's rhythm. If you want to say it's inaccurate, it's better to argue along the lines of "the rhythm doesn't complement the layer you appear to be mapping to" rather than "the rhythm doesn't follow a beat I consider to be stronger"

Also http://puu.sh/v9wrn/e03aa51f3a.jpg visual issue 00:35:558 (5,6) - here. It would look nicer if the slider was lined up with the lines. This really depends on the mapper's aesthetics.

00:37:655 (5,6,7,8) - I have questions about your patterning here. The first slider is mapped to the instruments, while the next 3 sliders are mapped to the lyrics. Despite the differences in where the sounds are coming from, you mapped them all as if they're coming from the same instrument. You need to contrast with a difference concept / pattern at 00:37:977 (6,7,8) -

00:38:865 (9) - This 1/4 jump has no support from the music. Yea it's there, but because it's stacked on 1 it's grouped with it. You're better of having that circle under the head of 9. There's definitely support from the music...

Overall I don't think the set is ready yet. It's needs some more polishing.
Good luck though.

Sotarks wrote:

Dafuq, i'll reply to this after class.
thx monstrata for the reply while i was at school!

Bubblun wrote:

My response is in blue

Overall I don't think the set is ready yet. It's needs some more polishing. I don't think, according to your modding, you are qualify enough to judge if a map is not polished enough to be ready. Your mods are only really subjective reasons, and personnal opinions. Which is not wrong tho, but it's not the kind of mod you want for qualified maps. When it comes to ranking a map logical reasoning > opinion. So far you apply anything you like rather than what actually makes the map better. Every maps can't apply opinions of everyones, the mapper has priority on it since it's his way to interpret the song by his mapping. This isn't supposed to be a personal attack on you, but your 'interpretation' isn't always going to be accurate. Maybe if this map was for loved you could get away with saying that, but for ranking you need to be objective. Also, the mapper doesn't have priority because whether a map gets ranked or not is completely up to the nominators who look at the map.
Good luck though. Thanks for modding!

Sotarks wrote:

Dafuq, i'll reply to this after class.
thx monstrata for the reply while i was at school!

Bubblun wrote:

My reponse is in orange

Overall I don't think the set is ready yet. It's needs some more polishing. I don't think, according to your modding, you are qualify enough to judge if a map is not polished enough to be ready. Your mods are only really subjective reasons, and personnal opinions. Which is not wrong tho, but it's not the kind of mod you want for qualified maps. When it comes to ranking a map logical reasoning > opinion. So far you apply anything you like rather than what actually makes the map better. Every maps can't apply opinions of everyones, the mapper has priority on it since it's his way to interpret the song by his mapping. This isn't supposed to be a personal attack on you, but your 'interpretation' isn't always going to be accurate. Maybe if this map was for loved you could get away with saying that, but for ranking you need to be objective. Also, the mapper doesn't have priority because whether a map gets ranked or not is completely up to the nominators who look at the map. I already had losts of opinions, feedback, modding, testplays, to affirm that this map is ready to be in the ranked section. I didn't take that like an attack it's like i interpret that alphabet modded, and he called his friend to mod it to, since i declined everything he called another friends and seem like you guys just want to get DQ my map with really subjective reasons that I don't agree with, some concers are valid but it's still your opinions, and those concerns won't affect map quality so far. I would like to end the disscusion here if possible.
Good luck though. Thanks for modding!

Sotarks wrote:

Hey wtf those are my parts xD
You want Kalibe to reply for me lol ? And why you guys are losing your Time here zzz

CptSqBany wrote:

Sotarks wrote:

Hey wtf those are my parts xD
You want Kalibe to reply for me lol ? And why you guys are losing your Time here zzz

Ok my bad, its because you wrote "Kalibe and Sotarks - I mapped one He mapped two" instead of keeping the order.

I will retranslate it later, now Im in school

Sotarks wrote:

You want Kalibe to reply for me lol ?

Doormat wrote:

don't mean to butt in, but the map description says sotarks mapped TrySail and kalibe mapped TRUE

Doormat wrote:

actually i'm more baffled you can't identify who mapped what based on the style alone it's not like their styles are super similar to each others[/size]

Doormat wrote:

or you could've just modded entirely in english instead of using two languages just because one of the collabers for that diff shares a common tongue with you

Sotarks wrote:

And why you guys are losing your Time here zzz

Sotarks wrote:

Dude why are you even waisting your time here... XD

Sotarks wrote:

Just stop waisting your time trying to make dq post like this please.

Yes, i could, but then Sotarks would have to defend Kalibe's part entirely, while Kalibe is somewhere, sitting and laughing at everybody's butthurt. Even If Sotarks is Kalibe's "master/senpai" (call it however you want), it doesn't mean he should take responsibilities of bad mapping for him. Being a pussy isn't a good way Kalibe.

CptSqBany wrote:

I've translated the mod to English...
Now the butthurt: Oh yeah please hurt me !!!

Sotarks wrote:

You want Kalibe to reply for me lol ?

No, I want Kalibe to take care of critics about his maps for himself, not asking other people to talk for him...
You just said that his part is pretty clean, everyone is just complaining of my part, and also how I can't reply for kalibe since it's OUR collab,
also yeah he can reply aswell but it will be the same as me.. But if it makes you happy then he will I guess XD
________________________________________________________________________________________________

Doormat wrote:

don't mean to butt in, but the map description says sotarks mapped TrySail and kalibe mapped TRUE

I made a mistake because:
1. The text is in grey color and the background is white, AND ALSO IT'S SMALL, so good luck with reading such things (especially if I have vision problem)
2.
You can see here that the scheme for this explanation of parts is:
Me and Kalibe
He mapped first song and I mapped second song
Where it should be:
Kalibe and Me
He mapped first song and He mapped second song
That's why I wrote the mod wrongly...
3.

Doormat wrote:

actually i'm more baffled you can't identify who mapped what based on the style alone it's not like their styles are super similar to each others[/size]

Seems like I couldn't recognise which part was Sotarks's and which was Kalibe's. I'm not a clairvoyant you know..
sorry senpai i can't make a good description i suxx
________________________________________________________________________________________________

Doormat wrote:

or you could've just modded entirely in english instead of using two languages just because one of the collabers for that diff shares a common tongue with you

Yes, i could, but then Sotarks would have to defend Kalibe's part entirely, while Kalibe is somewhere, sitting and laughing at everybody's butthurt. Even If Sotarks is Kalibe's "master/senpai" (call it however you want), it doesn't mean he should take responsibilities of bad mapping for him. Being a pussy isn't a good way Kalibe.
You really think he's here sitting somewhere laughing at everybody's butthurt ? LOL he just doesn't care about all those subjective and useless DQ mod post you guys are trying to do. Please don't insult also, thanks.
________________________________________________________________________________________________

Sotarks wrote:

And why you guys are losing your Time here zzz

Sotarks wrote:

Dude why are you even waisting your time here... XD

Sotarks wrote:

Just stop waisting your time trying to make dq post like this please.

Now you are just pissing me off. What you are trying to do here is to push away everybody from this mapset so they can't share their opinions on this mapset. You are scared that you will have to remap the diff, and you know it isn't the best of all of your maps. What you are doing here is an act of insolence and arrogance... Everybody has a right to share their opinions, so you can't just tell me to go away.
I think I'm not wasting time here by trying to open people's eyes, that this diff isn't ready for being ranked...
If you think you can just tell other mappers that they waste time by looking for errors in your maps, because you think that your map is perfect. Then you should probably stop mapping and go socialize with people...
It's not insolence, or arrogance dude and also i'm not pushing away everybody.. Pushing away, or ignoring someone would've been me saying "ALL NO CHANGE ><" or just lazy replies. I replied propelly to EVERY of you guys mods with A LARGE REASONING to every arguments.
I'm saying you guys are waisting your time since it looks like everytime one of you gets declined you call your friend to take the lead of those DQ post. I don't think my map is perfect, no maps are perfect. But my map is qualified enough to be in the ranking section, and your subjective mods won't help the actual quality of the map since I don't agree with you guys anyway. All I think is you are getting pissed off 'cause you're not able to DQ my map with your mods.

CptSqBany wrote:

01:03:433 (6,1) - I don't get it, why is there a lower spacing? It's misleading.. it's not lol. spacing here is lower spaced, cuz music changes intensity to less (here's SV)
01:20:753 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - the beat is constant here, why are you increasing the spacing? This hasn't got to do with anything that is happening in the song. Jumps here should be constantly snapped. just like sotarks replied to this, music is getting much intense in my view. also wanted to get a nice-looking and fitting with song spacing concepts, that's all..

Alphabet wrote:

Just want to drop a few things about the highest diff I'm concerned about

Kalitark's Hibike

[*]00:56:696 (2) - This isn't really important at all but this is the only type of hook slider in the whole diff and it's at a random place in the song, no key changes or anything. it's one of my slider styles to get better flow to next object. tbh it's cool as it is and i don't want to change it
[*]01:01:726 (3,1) - This is inconsistent because the finish is under-emphasized when you give it a bigger DS later on at 01:06:936 (2,3,1) - , 01:08:732 (2,3) - etc. i focused here more on instruments than actual vocals, 01:01:726 (3) - seems the most intense from rest so i spaced it more than 01:01:906 (1) -
[*]01:12:145 (1,2,3,4,5) - Shouldn't this have a NC at 01:12:684 (4) - or smth since you have the NC change at 01:08:193 (2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,4,1,2,3) - ? If not, then it all of these patterns should have the same, consistent NC as everything else. no. i just did one time 01:09:271 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3) - there's the most intense part with instruments, then 01:11:067 (2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5) - follows more on vocal thing
[*]01:14:840 (1) - There is no justification to this NC other than it looks nicer. Up to you if you wanna change nah. that combo is for aesthetic meaning
[*]01:17:355 (1,2,3) - I don't like 3 being stacked with 1 since there is no reason for it to be there. The lyrics are different and the tone of the song is slightly lower. Why not have 3 spaced slightly lower? This will give the jumps after more of a punch and then it'll be justified with the actual song. but still 01:17:355 (1,2,3) - she singing only 1 word here.. also i like used spacing concept, imo fits with song really well
[*]01:20:753 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1) - To me this is emphasized strangely. 01:20:932 (2,1) - & 01:21:292 (2,1) - sounds like they should be the ones with higher DS here instead of the current spacing you follow (01:21:112 (1,2) - 01:21:472 (1,2) - ). With the drums increasing in intensity, they would be more represented with the proposed DS changes. same as earlier
[/list][/notice]

Sotarks wrote:

I already had losts of opinions, feedback, modding, testplays, to affirm that this map is ready to be in the ranked section.

Sotarks wrote:

I didn't take that like an attack it's like i interpret that alphabet modded, and he called his friend to mod it to

Sotarks wrote:

you guys just want to get DQ my map with really subjective reasons that I don't agree with, some concers are valid but it's still your opinions, and those concerns won't affect map quality so far.

Alphabet wrote:

Sotarks wrote:

I already had losts of opinions, feedback, modding, testplays, to affirm that this map is ready to be in the ranked section.

You may do, but have you ever regarded the opinions or feedback from people that say the map could use more polishing before it's ultimately ranked? To me you're just ignoring everything because you have people that say it's rankable. It's like finding one set of data that's true to your hypothesis against hundreds of data that proves says hypothesis wrong. There's multiple people here that are concerned with a few things, why not ask a BN for some help instead of blindly disregarding it all and asking us to go away? We're only standing up to our thoughts.
I already had opinions from BNs out side of this thread, some feedbacks IRC i've never posted here... And with my experience in mapping now, I can see that this map, at this current stage is totally perfectly rankable with a decent quality. That's why I can justify every patterns you're trying to argue with, I can still do that tho during the last 2 days of qualification.
I can agree about the fact that not anybody can agree with the map, but that's mapping right. That's why I can still argue with you guys about the fact I disagree with your mods.

Sotarks wrote:

I didn't take that like an attack it's like i interpret that alphabet modded, and he called his friend to mod it to

Huh? I'm sorry if you thought I was "attacking" you but that's an absurd interpretation to say the least? I asked some friends for their opinion and they wanted to write their own concerns.

Why is DQing a map bad anyway though? The whole point of the qualified section is to point out some potential issues people find regarding the mapset as a whole, subjective or not, before it's ranked. You might as well say that this shouldn't exist at all if you want me to leave qualified maps alone and focus on pending maps (you told me this in PMs). At most, you're the one attacking me by trying to talk to me in a patronizing way xd
I don't have any problems about DQing a map when it's worth doing it, most of the time I get the QATs to DQ my maps to fix stuff mentionned by others, just check my other maps that got DQ'd actually if you care. I'm not actually telling you to leave my map alone, you can continue if you want, but the result will still be the same. I don't see anything worth it your mod that is worth a DQ, that's why I don't request a DQ.
Also i'm not attacking you I just find out that ignoring to call all your friends to try and DQ my map, but it's okay it's mapping life! The difference between you and me is, sometimes I mod qualified maps about my thoughts and if the mapper disagree with me I leave it there and that's it, i won't call my mutual list to come and mod it to piss off the mapper, is his problem not mine.

Sotarks wrote:

you guys just want to get DQ my map with really subjective reasons that I don't agree with, some concers are valid but it's still your opinions, and those concerns won't affect map quality so far.

Everything is subjective in a way, there's almost always never a right or wrong. With emphasis, you're pretty much guaranteed to emphasize the vocals, or loud drums in the song, that's what I based my mod off because that's what this map is exactly doing. There's definitely some places where the emphasis is inconsistent (see the third and second point in my mod) and I wanted to bring that up.
As I said emphasis is a really large subjective theme dude. Everyone can interpret emphasis like they think it's the good way.


Anyway,
With the second point ( 00:10:558 (1,2,3,4) - ) I can hear that the drums are slowly getting louder on the second set of the same jumps, but that's not a very good justification to how different in spacing these two are. 00:10:558 (1,2) - is spaced exactly the same as the "smaller" jumps that follow. All I wanted was for you to space 1 and 2 further so that the player can easily distinguish that there is a recurring pattern going on with the drums. At the moment, there is no incentive for the player to aim larger on the second or third pair of jumps.
I can understand about what you are going with, but imo my pattern fits well that section and it's like that I WANT to interpret the song by my mapping, i could use your interpretation but it's the way YOU would map it, but not ME. So yes I could ask for a DQ to change pixel spacing, but it's not worth enough imo. And I like the current pattern like it is.

Good luck

Venix wrote:

And one more issue, Linatarks' diff has unsnapped objects:
01:35:452 (1) -
01:49:464 (1) -

C00L wrote:

not trying to be rude here, but did any bn checking this map realised the obvious mistakes in timing near the end?

01:20:635 - starting from here, the timing isn't a constant bpm as seen clearly here 01:22:908 - at this beat, the timing seems to be at least 20ms out. As far as I'm aware that's unrankable tbh. This is more what it should be like
Please this song hasn't got any timing change at this place, please check Kibbleru's full version, I took mp3 from him.

That wasn't the only instance, this here too 00:50:397 - this starts like 50ms earlier than the actual dominant beat 50,417 sounds much more accurate than this one, and the max acceptable range in inaccuracy is something like +-5ms so idk how this is a acceptable thing.
I testplayed lots of time and this is timed ok, I also don't want to put it later because otherwise it's weird to play "i tried" !! that moment is pretty accurate and not missreading or missacc... maybe my ears are wrong but for me it's timed correctly, looked some testplayes on qualified leaderboards seems like poeple are accurate on this section, and both you mentionned...

These kinda are there for a reason

CptSqBany wrote:

Now I'm going to say something about Kalibe's diff, but in Polish... Why? Because he has to deal with his problems by himself, and not ask some other guys to protect him like he's a baby or something... And Sotarks, don't you even try to translate google things I'm going to write to him. It's his problem, not yours.

00:05:397 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - Sounds are the same in the music and you still increased the spacing. This has nothing to do with what is in the music. This is RHYTHM GAME, not fcking wrist-breaker I'm sorry I broke your wrist dude, I can offer you a hospital ticket if you want... Also I want to keep my 1/2 rythm building up here, compared to 00:07:977 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - this one decreasing thx.
00:07:494 (2,3,4,5,6) - This stream is wrongly blanketed with (1) circle Are you for real? You pixel mod qualified maps ?
00:07:977 (1,2,1,2) - Here, you did constant snapping instead... Maybe it's finally time to make patterns that has sense to music or else just stop mapping? I'll take that in consideration thanks senpai!
00:11:365 (6,8,9,10) - If (6) slider is straight, why (8,9,10) are curved? Explain it to me because it has no sense, it just looks horrible i inspired my self of alien by monstrata so poeple like you can eyes-bleed when you see my sliders!!!1 wtf is wrong with you is there a rule or smth to curve or not curve sliders ?
00:13:945 (6,8,9,10) - On the other hand, here, there are no straight sliders. You can't even keep the patterns constant throughout the song... pLS lEt Me choose when I wanT whjeN to CurVe or NOt sliDErs thX
00:34:913 (3) - This is wrongly blanketed, and dont tell me this is "aesthetics" because it has nothing to do with aesthetics.. (explanation is below) this is aesthetics!
00:35:558 (5,6) - Same here... I saw you were already discussing this thing here, and I don't fucking understand why you are so against moving these two objects couple of pixels further to either blanket with the slider, and also keeping equal distances from the slider itself. On the other hand you are complaining that this is aesthetics... Then let's say you are in school, Art lesson, and you have to draw a circle as good as possible, and you draw an egg shape (intentionally). If you will say this is a circle for you, it isn't a circle for everybody else, because for everybody else its an egg shape. Then you cry that you got a bad grade... just... don't be a jerk and sometimes listen to others... i never thought someone can do such words for blanket/pixel mod, man you should apply for harvard!
00:37:332 (3) - You can move it a one pixel closer to a slider one pixel? that's big, i'll maybe consider it to do smth like this : so maybe my blankets can be more accurate so poeple while playing will say OMG you're so good at maths !!!
00:41:687 (2,3,4) - I don't understand why you won't start with the full spacing, but you start with the half of it. The song doesn't change here. Of course, the vocals are ascending, but you don't increase the spacing evenly with the vocal... the build-up you've done is unjustifiable. well i don't want to start the hard jump section with full screen jumps already, you don't get the build up here, pls i explained this like 4 times already
00:45:719 (5,6,7,8) - Similar situation here, you should evenly increase spacing of this pattern with the vocals. You can't just put circles how you want them to be. This is rhythm game!! This is a loud vocal section!!!!!!!!

I think you just took your job of pp mapper too seriously, and you can't make a proper map anymore without putting unnecessary jumps... I wish the job of pp mapper can exist tbh, and earn money like 100$ bucks per pp maps, and evaluate your salary in term of full screen jumps and pp!!!
[/color]

Overall, I think there is too big difficulty spike between both of parts. Either Sotarks's part is too hard, or Kalibe''s part is too easy. This shouldn't be ranked at all and should be repaired ASAP. Overall, I think you are the most rude and bad modder I've ever seen. Your attitude should be repaired ASAP.

I mapped High Free Spirits' & he mapped Dream Solister's

I mapped High Free Spirits & he mapped Dream Solister

Kisses wrote:

I don't like the map but I like your mod replies, 30/30 very entertaining 👌

Also the grammar in the description is wrong

I mapped High Free Spirits' & he mapped Dream Solister's

It should be

I mapped High Free Spirits & he mapped Dream Solister

kds pls

Sotarks wrote:

Please this song hasn't got any timing change at this place, please check Kibbleru's full version, I took mp3 from him.

Sotarks wrote:

I can't assume the fact that you think i'm lazy, i replied to everymods correctly with proper arguments, poeple ended up insulting me so that's why now I'm a bit pissed off...
I do care about the map quality, and I don't care about the +1 in ranked folder tbh.
And I do think that the timing of this song is correct, and plays well.

Monstrata wrote:

It's possible for ranked maps to have poor timing, but you can always test this by looking at player feedback.

C00L wrote:

Well just like i cant convice you that something is wrong, you cant convince me that everything is fine. It does seem it's only me raising awarness but i guess you do make a point, it is only me and nobody else. All i can say is the map is going to be ranked soon so congrats i guess. Ill refrain from posting about timing again

C00L wrote:

Well just like i cant convince you that something is wrong, you cant convince me that everything is fine. It does seem it's only me raising awareness but i guess you do make a point, it is only me and nobody else. All i can say is the map is going to be ranked soon so congrats i guess. Ill refrain from posting about timing again