I wonder if i can rank this before hitting 16 posts and having a new second page hmm..

no

had this map downloaded a few weeks ago and its cool

[Easy]

00:29:603 (3,4) - Not a fan of this movement in this kind of difficulty. Something more like this would be fine - https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/8488865.
00:45:392 (1,2,3) - Eh...a bit early for this kind of progression. I think
02:28:881 (2,3) - due to the slowdown this actually might be tough to read / hit for a beginner, despite the low OD. I can imagine something like this being frustrating being at the end of the map from a design perspective. I recommend http://puu.sh/wzqnB/eff4c44377.jpg intead.
01:52:497 (1,2,3) - This movement is too advanced for this difficulty because it requires an understanding of slider leniency. Players in this difficulty level tend to follow sliders quite literally, which makes the movement to the next object much harsher than you may intend. Also applies to 02:17:760 (1,2,3) - 02:25:655 (3,1) -

Overall a very solid Easy. Good use of progression to match the song's intensity.

[normal]

Good diff, think you could add a gap in the rhythm somewhere in the chorus at the end for the sake of the player. It's already rather tough with the SV and spacing increase, so having to hit that many objects in a row is a bit draining imo.

[roar]

02:28:452 (1,2,3,4) - agree with lasse on this one, I can understand your reasoning but you also have to keep the player in mind, this is at the very end of the map and can be very frustrating to misread. I recommend stacking tbh. Wouldn't hate it if you didn't change this, but do consider it again.

Call me after 12 sp

oh... that was unexpected...
sorry to the guy i pm'ed yesterday :[
you are still cool for looking at it c:

[quote="Ho:b::b:es2":1337]

I wonder if i can rank this before hitting 16 posts and having a new second page hmm..

no HelloDarknessMyOldFriend

had this map downloaded a few weeks ago and its cool people download my maps wtf O_O

[Easy]

00:29:603 (3,4) - Not a fan of this movement in this kind of difficulty. Something more like this would be fine - https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/8488865. have to agree because i agree
00:45:392 (1,2,3) - Eh...a bit early for this kind of progression. I think i was worried aswell but i can not not have feedback on these piano notes. An alternative would be to use a repeat on the first slider but adjusting that pattern might take a while (and long gap between th enew 00:46:181 (2,3) - would be kinda awkward)
02:28:881 (2,3) - due to the slowdown this actually might be tough to read / hit for a beginner, despite the low OD. I can imagine something like this being frustrating being at the end of the map from a design perspective. I recommend http://puu.sh/wzqnB/eff4c44377.jpg intead. yeah ficed. Although slide rlengths look kinda decieving now, might have to adjust. idunno
01:52:497 (1,2,3) - This movement is too advanced for this difficulty because it requires an understanding of slider leniency. Players in this difficulty level tend to follow sliders quite literally, which makes the movement to the next object much harsher than you may intend. Also applies to 02:17:760 (1,2,3) - 02:25:655 (3,1) - I did intend this to be played like this. I concidered the fact that newer players follow the sliders all the way through and felt the chord progression was emphasised pretty well with the slider shapes repeating with continuous angle changes. The last one is kind of a miss.. i think. I used it to accentuate the upbeat but it bothers me now... will see what I'll end up doing

Overall a very solid Easy. Good use of progression to match the song's intensity. :]

[normal]

Good diff, think you could add a gap in the rhythm somewhere in the chorus at the end for the sake of the player. It's already rather tough with the SV and spacing increase, so having to hit that many objects in a row is a bit draining imo. I had the same concern with this one. Though it looks very difficult to delete something w/o braking it.

[roar]

02:28:452 (1,2,3,4) - agree with lasse on this one, I can understand your reasoning but you also have to keep the player in mind, this is at the very end of the map and can be very frustrating to misread. I recommend stacking tbh. Wouldn't hate it if you didn't change this, but do consider it again. I spend some time readjusting it but i cant seem to be content with any time-distance preserving patterns for now. Stacking is kinda... I want it to continuously move to one side (left). Keeping the movement in one direction (and not halting) makes atleast me feel the slowdown of the song similar enough to how the song makes me feel it (if that makes sense). I am also looking at how followpoints apear and I decided against having it show between 02:28:452 (1,2) - precicely because of the feels. perfection. I will annoy some people like next week-end or later today to see how they react to different versions of that part. Cant have that one bothering me!

Call me after 12 sp oki c:

Smokeman wrote:

sorry to the guy i pm'ed yesterday :[

hobbes too fast

ok so quickly before 12 sp

easy
00:20:129 - 00:20:918 - 00:21:708 - I'd have just made all this a repeat slider so sounds a grouped accordingly. Makes it consistent with the other three-grouped piano sounds like 00:01:182 - 00:07:497 - 00:13:813 - 00:26:445 - etc. Would also emphasize 00:23:287 - better by preceding it with a circle.

00:45:392 (1,2,3) - Bit unexpected here, would be more expected at 00:50:129 - due to the transition and it being different from previous measures.

01:34:339 (2,3,1,2,3,4,5) - Is also a bit dense compared to what the rest of this phase was doing. Keep it consistent with 01:09:076 - I'd say. So use a repeat 01:11:050 - 01:36:313 - and tail at 01:13:024 - 01:38:287 - . Maybe some variation to show that the song's piano pitch is a bit different this time around, but not this dense.

02:23:287 - 01:58:024 - Was thinking since the pitch changes here and not 02:24:076 - etc. that perhaps setting the new combo accordingly would make sense. I mean it's pretty different from 01:46:181 - 01:52:497 - 02:11:445 - 02:17:760 - .

normal
01:42:234 - So from here there's a lot of 1/2 slider double circle spam so would try utilizing this stuff more 01:44:208 (5) - . Maybe add some at 01:50:524 - , 02:03:155 - and 02:15:787 - so it's appearance is doubled. Makes it more recognizable and predictable as well. Looking at the easy, it seems to place the repeats before the red tick sound 01:43:024 - , in order to then place a circle on the red tick and slider on 01:44:603 - to emphasize the piano. Both ways probably work, but latter makes more sense imo. Although...

The rhythm here is pretty similar to that of easy, but very different from roaring tides. This is a bit worrying so perhaps 1/4 can be implemented in some way. Maybe fill in the drums with circles or whatnot 01:43:616 - . imo a 1/4 stack wouldn't be too difficult in this bpm for a normal. Could even use the same unstacking concept as roaring tides uses as a kind of introductory visual element. Spacing to and from the stack would still need to be clear though.

roaring tides
00:02:760 - 00:28:024 - Nice to have some consistency with ncing perhaps

00:09:076 - so you've got tons of ncing around from 00:01:182 - to 00:51:708 - , but then it's much less at 00:59:603 - , from 00:51:708 - to 01:39:076 - despite being more dense (also rip bookmark 01:39:076 - )

00:52:892 (3,4) - This drum spacing concept is cool and I like but 01:12:037 - stood out as inconsistent. It's literally the only one done like this.

01:10:260 (7,1) - These stacks are really reminiscent of something like 01:02:366 (2,3) - so would not recommend spacing them like this. Considering that it's also a relatively low difficulty I'm assuming newer players are supposed to play it, so especially in that case you'd want to make things like this clear.

01:34:142 (3,4) - 01:08:879 (3,4) - Could try making all of the drums with similar spacing, even if these are consistent by themselves. That way maybe you could try indicating some anti-jump like this instead or whatnot so things don't get ambiguous.

Naxess wrote:

Smokeman wrote:

sorry to the guy i pm'ed yesterday :[

hobbes too fast

ok so quickly before 12 sp

easy
00:20:129 - 00:20:918 - 00:21:708 - I'd have just made all this a repeat slider so sounds a grouped accordingly. Makes it consistent with the other three-grouped piano sounds like 00:01:182 - 00:07:497 - 00:13:813 - 00:26:445 - etc. Would also emphasize 00:23:287 - better by preceding it with a circle. There are 4 subsections in each main section of the song. Every second section is the the fourth but with a lower pitch and volume on the piano near the end (compare 2. mainpart part 2 and 4 near the end). Which is why i decided to map this different from everything else. Although it would fit musicaly to have a reverse it goes kinda against my consistency.

00:45:392 (1,2,3) - Bit unexpected here, would be more expected at 00:50:129 - due to the transition and it being different from previous measures. I had it like thi first, but 00:50:129 (1,2,1) - didnt feel like a good transition to me with the 1/2 sliders so i thought i would emphasise the climax of the 1. main part like this and keep the drums simple

01:34:339 (2,3,1,2,3,4,5) - Is also a bit dense compared to what the rest of this phase was doing. Keep it consistent with 01:09:076 - I'd say. So use a repeat 01:11:050 - 01:36:313 - and tail at 01:13:024 - 01:38:287 - . Maybe some variation to show that the song's piano pitch is a bit different this time around, but not this dense. Its the "last part of the 4 subparts"-effect again. I tried implementing your suggested rythm but it doesnt really appeal to me :S

02:23:287 - 01:58:024 - Was thinking since the pitch changes here and not 02:24:076 - etc. that perhaps setting the new combo accordingly would make sense. I mean it's pretty different from 01:46:181 - 01:52:497 - 02:11:445 - 02:17:760 - . Thats true but 02:24:076 (1) - is a more dominant sound than the circle even tho the pitch changes.

normal
01:42:234 - So from here there's a lot of 1/2 slider double circle spam so would try utilizing this stuff more 01:44:208 (5) - . Maybe add some at 01:50:524 - , 02:03:155 - and 02:15:787 - so it's appearance is doubled. Makes it more recognizable and predictable as well. Looking at the easy, it seems to place the repeats before the red tick sound 01:43:024 - , in order to then place a circle on the red tick and slider on 01:44:603 - to emphasize the piano. Both ways probably work, but latter makes more sense imo. Although...

The rhythm here is pretty similar to that of easy, but very different from roaring tides. This is a bit worrying so perhaps 1/4 can be implemented in some way. Maybe fill in the drums with circles or whatnot 01:43:616 - . imo a 1/4 stack wouldn't be too difficult in this bpm for a normal. Could even use the same unstacking concept as roaring tides uses as a kind of introductory visual element. Spacing to and from the stack would still need to be clear though.
I was thinking of doing that aswell when hobbes mentioned the constant 1/2 spam, but i didnt map more repeats because of the way the song changes its pitch to sound more intense. Although it stays rythmicly the same most of the times, I changed emphasis through angles and object placement like 01:50:524 (5,6) - 02:00:392 (5,1) - . Needless to say the other diffs use concepts like these to represent differences like these in the music

roaring tides
00:02:760 - 00:28:024 - Nice to have some consistency with ncing perhaps :gun: :fuck: time to rethink NC in this section

00:09:076 - so you've got tons of ncing around from 00:01:182 - to 00:51:708 - , but then it's much less at 00:59:603 - , from 00:51:708 - to 01:39:076 - despite being more dense (also rip bookmark 01:39:076 - ) i went with a clearer pattern for NCs since this section is less ambiguous int emphasis since there the intrumentation started to get fuller allowing me to map a more consistent tone than in the first section

00:52:892 (3,4) - This drum spacing concept is cool and I like but 01:12:037 - stood out as inconsistent. It's literally the only one done like this. Compare the ending of this and the last section of this main section of the song. Those small changes between the high pitch and low pitch sounds .:ok_hand::weary:

01:10:260 (7,1) - These stacks are really reminiscent of something like 01:02:366 (2,3) - so would not recommend spacing them like this. Considering that it's also a relatively low difficulty I'm assuming newer players are supposed to play it, so especially in that case you'd want to make things like this clear. Bruh this is an Extra lvl diff on some low-ass bpm :dab:. Seriously tho the NC should give it away (its teal on orange), besides some reading gimmicks are cool to have form time to time even on "lower" difs

01:34:142 (3,4) - 01:08:879 (3,4) - Could try making all of the drums with similar spacing, even if these are consistent by themselves. That way maybe you could try indicating some anti-jump like this instead or whatnot so things don't get ambiguous. I think i did what you suggest hear already hmm.. (some have slight variations for the sake of my aesthetic senseabilities)

thanks for taking a look at this. I have put a lot of thought in how i was going to map this before i even put a single circle down. So to be honest a lot of my structure is inherently tied to the whole of each specific diff. The 1/2 spam in the normal dif wasn't really a problem in my book so... yea i get the concern but idunno how to map that part in a different manner w/o remapping the whole dif lol

so... can i technically speaking get this approved? c:

Edit: had it tested by some people.
results:
-2/2 ending is perfectly fine lol
-2/2 those stacks are cancerous to play if you are higher ranked
-1/1 low ranked guy couldnt pass it... (:

Everything looks good, consider spacing 02:27:234 (2,1,2) - out normally (visually, I mean) in the easy diff. As in, use the usual visual spacing like 02:26:445 (1,2) - for 02:28:452 (1,2). Not a huge deal, so I wouldn't care if you changed it or not.

Hobbes2 wrote:

Everything looks good, consider spacing 02:27:234 (2,1,2) - out normally (visually, I mean) in the easy diff. As in, use the usual visual spacing like 02:26:445 (1,2) - for 02:28:452 (1,2). Not a huge deal, so I wouldn't care if you changed it or not.

did the thing abit and and added kiai
and moved 01:30:984 (4) - 1 pixel to the left

In his IRC, Naxss called me "Hobbs"

map looks good, only potential concern could be spread, but star rating ignored I think the progression is fine, even if its a bit top heavy.

clannad!!!

top diff

this actually puts kiai on everything from 00:00:000 - to 00:01:182 - which is ????

easy
02:28:452 (1,2) - actual rhythm gap between these is bigger than 02:27:234 (2,1) -, but only slightly. so just keeping the same visual spacing would be much nicer as the sudden overlap makes it likely for beginners to misinterpret rhythm here
=> http://i.imgur.com/9fqQTiB.jpg


other things should be fine

Lasse wrote:

top diff

this actually puts kiai on everything from 00:00:000 - to 00:01:182 - which is ????

easy
02:28:452 (1,2) - actual rhythm gap between these is bigger than 02:27:234 (2,1) -, but only slightly. so just keeping the same visual spacing would be much nicer as the sudden overlap makes it likely for beginners to misinterpret rhythm here
=> http://i.imgur.com/9fqQTiB.jpg


other things should be fine

ye that bug with the kiai was like -_ lol -
did that other thing which i implemented only half when hobbs mentioned cause i wanted to be cewl
updated tags: 潮鳴り roaring tides key visual art's sunflower field
didnt add another timing section for the first note lol
FKN disabled FKN countdown (like why is it even checked to begin with...)
kms

what's your metadata source? .-.

a mapset with the same song (https://osu.ppy.sh/s/382893) used this:

Rizen wrote:

what's your metadata source? .-.

a mapset with the same song (https://osu.ppy.sh/s/382893) used this:

http://vgmdb.net/album/548 Idunno how creditable this is :/

3.
quoted from "sionari"
additional melody & arranged by manyo
original composed by shinji orito
lyrics by key
vocal by riya
chorus by riya & sakula

I took notice of afore mentioned map but i just couldnt confirm the meta data. Every other release uses the meta data i used or w/o a space so idk
On Itunes its https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/shion ... =823583234 its Shionari without the space (linked from http://key.soundslabel.com/ost.html)
but on the Disc http://vgmdb.net/album/555 its Shio Nari and thats the name it loaded when droping the mp3 :/

I took the latter one because this http://kanji.quus.net/jyukugo1933/idiom102587.htm was the only source i found on how to write these and they used a space thingy. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ beats me

Take your pick lol

Maybe QATs could add those other versions as online tags or something ugh..

yeah

Doyak wrote:

IamKwaN wrote:

'海鳴り原曲は「潮鳴り」。' - Uminari's original song is Sionari.

According to what I found, Uminari is a vocal song originated from Shionari and it's performed by riya.
As your map is an instrumental song, what Lanturn found for the artist is correct, based on what I have read from the booklet of the OST. As for the romanisation of the title, please use all small letters as shown here, aka 'sionari'. Please grab Lanturn's opinion on whether all small letters should be used.

If you are going to map also the vocal song, 'riya' is the correct artist while 'Uminari' is the correct romanised title.

Good luck!

PS. riya is actually the vocal of eufonius.
Reference: Please search for 'KSLA-0009' in this webpage and 'KSLA-0012～0014' here.

So this is gonna be our new metadata lol, I still should check whether I should use "shionari" or "Shionari" for romananization.

^ a quote from 2 years ago.

iTunes is not official, they sometimes just alter the title to make it more consistent and easier to read or something. So if there's a "more official" one, you must prioritize it first.

http://vgmdb.net/db/covers.php?do=view&cover=70991 This is the booklet from the album, so it's one of the most reliable official source we can get.

I cannot find any official website of Orito Shinji, so if you don't find one, the romanized artist must be shinji orito as written on the booklet.

The unicode artist is wrong anyway, it must be 折戸伸治 because we prioritize the original language unless stated. shinji orito must go to the romanized artist field.
Also the unicode title must be 潮鳴り , and move sionari to the romanized title.

You can add Shio Nari or Shionari or whatever on the tags.

Also,

Smokeman wrote:

but on the Disc http://vgmdb.net/album/555 its Shio Nari and thats the name it loaded when droping the mp3 :/

Have you seen the mp3 file from the actual disk, or just downloaded it from a website that says it's from the disk? Also I don't see anywhere it says "Shio Nari" on that page. It only shows the Japanese title on the booklet too http://vgmdb.net/db/covers.php?do=view&cover=206

And it's quite contradicting that you used full lowercase letters for the difficulty names, while not applying the "shinji orito - sionari" format.

Late reply cause i was busy...

Fixed the unicode artist/songname thing

You can write Orito Shinji in capital letters aswell http://media.vgm.io/albums/03/6230/6230-1199011792.jpg

In the rules it sais i should use the "surname firstname" order https://puu.sh/wJQbW/7cbf3be97d.png which is in place throughout osu already.


I talked with both KwaN and Doyak about the naming problem this song poses but we couldn't settle on an argreement. This is what i propose and my reasoning behind it:

From KwaN's proposed Metadata rulings: "Do not alter the song's title. This includes placing official preferred romanisation at the highest priority"

This is a reasonable rule to follow in general but regarding this case it is somewhat problematic since none of us are really happy naming the song "sionari" over "shionari".
"sionari" uses the Kunrei-shiki romanization system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunrei-shiki_romanization which represents the Japanese language more closely.
I am proposing to use the Hepburn romanization system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepburn_romanization which is more intuitive to read for non-japanese since it represents the actual reading in japanese with the latin alphabet more closely to how its really pronounced. It is common to adjust the romanization system used to fit the needs of the work quoting/referencing the pice in question.

Rgarding the "popularity" of using "sionari" over "shionari":
We should take a look at the google search results: https://www.google.de/?gws_rd=ssl#q=sionari So the only thing you get is the osu! map form 2 years ago and some wierd deviantArt profile followed by more unrelated bs.
So it safe to say that this song it known using a version of the Hepburn romanization system. In this case osu! is the odd one standing out...

On the topic of using official romanization over a more inuitive one:
The point of romanizing is that non-native speakers can actually read and pronounce the title in question in a convinient way. Official romanizations arent allways helpful in that. Ofcouse when the reading is not obvious then we should follow the official release but our case is far from that. If Key released this song with the romanization "zyounali" the other day then using that would completely defy the whole point of romanizing the song for someone to read it how its actually read in the first place.

Besides, the artist himself suggests the version witht the "h" https://puu.sh/wNQGI/c797a1cc10.png (kinda more official source than a 15 y/o booklet isn't?)
Though it seems it doesnt really matter to him anyway so we arent really "disrespecting" the artist by using the more intuitive version which fits our needs.

And a response i got from the VGMdb-Team regarding this topic: https://puu.sh/wKfRG/e11cccc41c.png

Sadly i couldnt get my hands on this original soundtrack disc (doesnt ship to my adress / 80 bucks for a used version) and have not found anyone who owns it (turns out fans tend to own the smaller releases).


This my stance on the topic.

Alright let's see...

On the link you provided about "Orito Shinji", it actually says "Shinji Orito" so it supports "Shinji Orito" order, and most of other references also support this order of name romanization. We always prioritize what the artist prefers, even with the order of romanization. "which is in place throughout osu already." is never a valid argument.

RC/Metadata wrote:

Eastern artists must be written in the proper 'surname firstname' format (e.g. Japanese/Chinese/Korean). For artists which have a preferred romanisation, use this one. If you're unsure of your artist's name, then check previously ranked maps, Google, Wikipedia, or ask a BN for help.

As you got a direct reply from the Unison Label, I'd say we're fine with "shionari" then. I'll try to confirm this with KwaN too.

Everything in a nutshell



If you have any more questions, reply here.

oke, I was uncertain cause the last map i ranked i got told otherwise.. but its been a year since then at it seems like the latest maps have been ranked according to the new ruling: https://osu.ppy.sh/p/beatmaplist?l=1&r= ... ura%20yuki http://media.vgm.io/albums/22/24022/240 ... 743043.jpg


we should be gucci now!

Great

long live clannad