Naotoshi wrote:

can u also get a slightly better but not as dumb diff name while you're at it

Lama Poluna wrote:

Naotoshi wrote:

can u also get a slightly better but not as dumb diff name while you're at it

We can't make the file name longer, otherwise it may not open at some people.

F1r3tar wrote:

Naotoshi wrote:

can u also get a slightly better but not as dumb diff name while you're at it

Using that on a marathon has been more original than most other approved maps.

Shmiklak wrote:

Excuse me, but epilepsy warning is still enabled. There is no storyboard or video so it should be dissabled.

Namki wrote:

Greeting. Great map but there are some things I'm concered about.

*Isn't HP drain too big? I thinkg something about -1 from currect would fit better as map has a lot of various 1/4 rhythm.

Namki wrote:

Not exactly. This map has a lot of complicated and difficult 1/4 patterns so when you miss you'll lose too much HP.

Okorin wrote:

i think what they mean is that the ticks are inaudible to them

Namki wrote:

Greeting. Great map but there are some things I'm concered about.

*Isn't HP drain too big? I thinkg something about -1 from currect would fit better as map has a lot of various 1/4 rhythm. unprofessional players have been good for this map. Many feel there are not 6*. So I think that everything is fine.
*00:10:464 - having unclickable object here doesn't give a proper feedback to a player as a new music stanza is introducing and you start it with passive gameplay element such as sliderend. You can, for instance, the s .ame as for 00:01:964 (4) - .
NOTE: 02:08:130 (1,2) - / 02:09:463 (1,2) - etc. — the same.We have already discussed this point many times and came to the conclusion that this is normal. So we changed it to be more visible. So everything is fine.
*00:10:798 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1) - NC for 00:11:798 (1) - doesn't seem reasanoble to me. If we listen to 00:10:798 (1,2,1,2) - pattern has clearly audible transition right here 00:11:464 - and you emphasis it with NCing but on the other hand 00:11:798 - doesn't have such transition. Remove NC for better feedback and music reflection seem pretty logical to me.
The same as above 00:12:631 (4) - / 00:15:298 (4) - / 00:17:964 (4) - etc. — new music stanza so having these without NC looks pretty senseless and doesn't really refflect the track. "reasanoble to me" but not to me. We also talked about. We talked about this with Electoz. I think everything is OK, he approved.
*00:16:131 (1,2,3) - meaningless and inconsistent 1/2 gaps. Is not really a good idea to have such kind of things is Extras. Just two 1/2 sliders is pretty good solution for this kind of things. Do you hear in these spaces sound? I'm not.
*Also, you are silencing both slidertick.wav and sliderslide.wav which is unrankable. For instance, 00:01:964 (4) - / 00:04:631 (4) - / 00:07:298 (4) - etc. — this piano fadeout covers sliderticks and they become unaudible and don't give proper feedback. I have no slidertick.wav
*00:26:797 (1) - / 00:28:797 (1) - / 00:30:797 (1) - etc. — intentioanlly ignored 1/2 prominent sound isn't a good way to give feedback. This is a rhythm "slowdown", I can't see any proper reason to make that. 1/2 reverse works pretty fine here. This in order to emphasize the strong piano sound that stands out among the others.
*Spacing from this part 00:38:797 - doesn't make much sense to me. 00:39:631 (4,1) - / 00:42:464 (3,1) - / 00:43:464 (3,1) - etc. — too way inconsistent and random. The same goes for 00:40:131 (2,3) - / 00:42:131 (2,3) - / 00:43:131 (2,3) - etc. I'd recommend you to make it more consistent. For me, the spacing is completely normal. Many people to map so I can give you a bunch of examples.
*00:57:797 (3) - / 01:01:464 (5) - etc. — lack of rhythm emphasis. If you mapped this according to the stongest piano sound then unclickable sliderend should've been clickable. Others intrumentals isn't emphasized either. I suppose two 1/2 sliders is a good idea. Or maybe 3/4 and a slider? A solution as well. No, they shouldn't. It's not a strong beat.
*01:02:131 (1,2,1,2) - the first part is more prominent than the second but spacing is made vice versa. 01:02:464 (1,2) - these have quite strong sound 01:02:464 - here and 01:02:631 - here. Less spacing for 01:02:131 (1,2) - and more spacing for 01:02:464 (1,2) - would bring more emphasis to this pattern so far. Enough to go crazy. This is perfectly normal. Maybe I'm not always so perfectly accentuate beats. I wanted to make a pattern. Many people do not emphasize strong beats for the pattern and that's fine. The spacing is slightly different. It's not jumping all over the map.
*01:06:464 (5,6) - just compare to 01:05:797 (1,2) - . Pattern is the same but 01:06:464 (5,6) - this patterns has prominent 1/4 sounds under these sliders. Because the sounds are totally different.
*01:07:047 (2,3,4,5,6) - the same as above but contrary. Pretty inconsistent stream. ^
*01:13:631 (1,1) - spacing here seems like 1/1 spacing just before this pattern, may be hard to read. Good to read.
*01:16:131 (2,1) - compare to 01:17:631 (1,1) - . Pretty similar patterns and music but spacing is too way different. It's better to keep consistency for such kind of patterns. Stream wouldn't hurt instead of 01:06:464 (5,6) - . Because the sounds are totally different.
Some rhythm inconsisties and concering moments for me:
*01:27:797 (8) - sorta weird repeat with pretty audible sound 01:27:964 - . I don't think diversity in the mapping is bad. Let us all map notes. / 01:33:464 (1) - I cannot understand which instrumentals were you according while mapping this. It has this audible sound right here 01:33:631 - . <<< / 02:34:297 (1) - and 02:44:963 (1) - having an ignored downbeat isn't quite consistent withing this part of the song.I emphasize piano and offer variety. / 03:36:797 (4) - and 03:39:464 (4) - the most prominent sound goes for the repeat which has to be clickable. variety. It is played well. In this part everyone has a different concept of bets. Someone hears some stronger, someone more. / 05:01:377 - the same. Lack of rhythm emphasis as for me. Such strong sound and not clickable. It is impossible to make all strong bits are clickable. May I just emphasize piano. / 05:12:377 (2) - if we compare this to 05:18:376 (2) - we can hear that the second slider has prominent sound starting from the red tick but on the other hand the first slider has the prominent sound on the blue tick. The same goes for 05:18:376 (2) - blue has sound on it. A solution could be making these spacing issues consistent which aren't and make these sounds clickable which aren't as well. Because there is a completely different stream of music.
Some spacings:
*01:54:797 (1,2,3,4) - kinda lacks spacing emphasis 01:54:630 (2,1) - . Try ctrl+j out. / There are also a lot of inconsisties 03:47:130 (2,1,2) - and 03:49:797 (2,1,2) - the same pattern for the same music but it has a huge difference between. / the same goes for 03:59:130 (1,2) - and 04:09:797 (2,3) - . It was in mod and I already changed it. I don't see anything bad.
*04:43:377 (2,3,4) - you definitely forgot to change sampleset to soft. He is there and not needed.

just my thoughts, nothing extraordinary

Okorin wrote:

was just saying that having a silent sliderslide and inaudible ticks is similarly unrankable atm

and that i think maybe that's what they're claiming

05:23:626 (1,2) - kinda fucked me up there because unlike the other patterns both sliderheads weren't overlapping
only thing im a bit sad about is that you didnt map the different song any differently I love overlaps. I see in them his own aesthetics, which you may not understand.

04:57:710 (5) - 05:05:710 (1) - buffer your 1/8 buzzsliders pls (

02:29:464 (1,1,2,3,1,1,2,1,2,1) - compared to the rest of the map hitsounding in these parts seems pretty lackluster, like there's so much you can hitsound and all you do is basses somehow, you do so much more with it for the rest of the map compared to that So feels the man who did them. I can say that it is justified and logical. I like how they sound...

I'll change it if someone else will write

*01:06:464 (5,6) - just compare to 01:05:797 (1,2) - . Pattern is the same but 01:06:464 (5,6) - this patterns has prominent 1/4 sounds under these sliders. Because the sounds are totally different.

*01:27:797 (8) - sorta weird repeat with pretty audible sound 01:27:964 - . I don't think diversity in the mapping is bad. Let us all map notes. / 01:33:464 (1) - I cannot understand which instrumentals were you according while mapping this. It has this audible sound right here 01:33:631 - . <<< / 02:34:297 (1) - and 02:44:963 (1) - having an ignored downbeat isn't quite consistent withing this part of the song.I emphasize piano and offer variety. / 03:36:797 (4) - and 03:39:464 (4) - the most prominent sound goes for the repeat which has to be clickable. variety. It is played well. In this part everyone has a different concept of bets. Someone hears some stronger, someone more.

Lama Poluna wrote:

05:23:626 (1,2) - kinda fucked me up there because unlike the other patterns both sliderheads weren't overlapping
only thing im a bit sad about is that you didnt map the different song any differently I love overlaps. I see in them his own aesthetics, which you may not understand.

Sieg wrote:

ох воу, совершенно крутая карта, гц с кваливаем :3
но

I feel like you restrain yourself from imroving\fixing stuff because of the qualification state.

This is also bothers me p/5992087

I'll change it if someone else will write

So you changed your opinion?

Also some of your replies makes no sense, for example

*01:06:464 (5,6) - just compare to 01:05:797 (1,2) - . Pattern is the same but 01:06:464 (5,6) - this patterns has prominent 1/4 sounds under these sliders. Because the sounds are totally different.

From what i understand modder states that it's better to make stream out of 01:06:381 (4,5,6) - because music implies that, while atm it's absolutely the same as 01:05:714 (5,1,2) - which makes little sense in proper rhythm reflection.
It is my choice to map it sliders or notes and not someone more. I wanted to map is sliders and I think it's perfect emphasize a music.

*01:27:797 (8) - sorta weird repeat with pretty audible sound 01:27:964 - . I don't think diversity in the mapping is bad. Let us all map notes. / 01:33:464 (1) - I cannot understand which instrumentals were you according while mapping this. It has this audible sound right here 01:33:631 - . <<< / 02:34:297 (1) - and 02:44:963 (1) - having an ignored downbeat isn't quite consistent withing this part of the song.I emphasize piano and offer variety. / 03:36:797 (4) - and 03:39:464 (4) - the most prominent sound goes for the repeat which has to be clickable. variety. It is played well. In this part everyone has a different concept of bets. Someone hears some stronger, someone more.

Or this, 03:36:797 (4) - cmon, how this can be justified by variety? Rhythm line you following is completely abandoned.
And so on, unfortunately I don't have time to elaborate most of the things right at the moment, will give a closer look later.

You know that people can map different and not absolutely mapat on the beats? Need to transfer music by any methods. I sense it so I map it like this is so. Please stop thinking that everyone thinks like you. No one map the same. If my patterns and my opinion does not coincide with yours it does not mean that I am wrong. Mapping a relative thing.

Okay, the slider ends on a strong beat.

If you need any help, with translation stuff\understanding poke me, will help gladly.
I dont need your help, thanks

Sieg wrote:

Lama Poluna wrote:

05:23:626 (1,2) - kinda fucked me up there because unlike the other patterns both sliderheads weren't overlapping
only thing im a bit sad about is that you didnt map the different song any differently I love overlaps. I see in them his own aesthetics, which you may not understand.

Окорин попросил меня написать тебе, что он имел ввиду тут не сам оверлап, а то, что слайдерхеды не оверлапаются как в других паттернах и это создает чувство стрим-джампа.

Lama Poluna wrote:

Sieg wrote:

From what i understand modder states that it's better to make stream out of 01:06:381 (4,5,6) - because music implies that, while atm it's absolutely the same as 01:05:714 (5,1,2) - which makes little sense in proper rhythm reflection.
It is my choice to map it sliders or notes and not someone more. I wanted to map is sliders and I think it's perfect emphasize a music.


Or this, 03:36:797 (4) - cmon, how this can be justified by variety? Rhythm line you following is completely abandoned.
You know that people can map different and not absolutely mapat on the beats? Need to transfer music by any methods. I sense it so I map it like this is so. Please stop thinking that everyone thinks like you. No one map the same. If my patterns and my opinion does not coincide with yours it does not mean that I am wrong. Mapping a relative thing.

If you need any help, with translation stuff\understanding poke me, will help gladly.
I dont need your help, thanks

1. 04:40:129 (1) - the way you hitsound this beat (literally a voice sample) is sort of misleading as instead of actually giving audible eedback it just ads a different sample. You could just storyboard the sound into the .osu or .osb file. It would be way more logical, I believe.
   Note: and even if you do intend to keep it this way, you really should tick the "samples match playback rate" toggle as any playback rate modifier ruins the intended experience.

Lama Poluna wrote:

Please, everyone respect your right to choose whatever you like, I hope so. You should try be less defensive and actually elaborate your thoughts behind proposals which people deems as improvement in your map, not to write random sentences, they spend time trying to help you.

Ну как-то так, линкну еще и это https://osu.ppy.sh/wiki/Code_of_Conduct:_Modding_and_Mapping. И не надо считать, что все тебя хейтят. Отличная карта, но люди в праве выражать свое мнение и тут бы тебе следовало воспользоваться предложенной помощью и объяснить им нормально почему ты решил сделать так как есть, а не писать, что все тебя ненавидят.

Bakari wrote:

For the sake of transparency I'd really insist on keeping all the discussions related to the beatmap quality and patterning in English. If you believe that something has to be addressed, say it in English. Otherise, proceed to the private messages.

Sieg wrote:

Bakari wrote:

For the sake of transparency I'd really insist on keeping all the discussions related to the beatmap quality and patterning in English. If you believe that something has to be addressed, say it in English. Otherise, proceed to the private messages.

This.
Also don't involve me in your dramas.

Okorin wrote:

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

fwiw i don't hate you or the map lol quite the opposite the map is kinda fun

01:16:714 (2) - has one repeat too much ++++
04:57:710 (5) - 05:05:710 (1) - shoudl be buffered according to guideline ++++ :

Buzz sliders should have appropriate delay before the next note. 1/8 and 1/16 sliders should be followed by a 1/4 gap, whereas 1/12 sliders should be followed by a 1/6 gap. This ensures that the hit-window between hitobjects is playable.

all the other sliders in your map do that
you may want to reconsider the opinions of everyone else here because i doubt Bakari nor Sieg nor I have ill intentions here. When in doubt, get someone to translate

Bakari wrote:

Oh well, I was sort of invited to post my opinion, so yeah. Not a huge fan of this kind of music, but I thought I'd give somewhat objective commentary here.

[General]

1. 04:40:129 (1) - the way you hitsound this beat (literally a voice sample) is sort of misleading as instead of actually giving audible eedback it just ads a different sample. You could just storyboard the sound into the .osu or .osb file. It would be way more logical, I believe.
   Note: and even if you do intend to keep it this way, you really should tick the "samples match playback rate" toggle as any playback rate modifier ruins the intended experience.