Since I notice that explaining things doesn't work, so maybe explaining things using their own maps can work and as I said I'm not trying to justify in, but to explain it at multiple ways, comparing similar ideas of 1 person map to other is prob the best way of mutual understanding. Btw Mao told me he is going to post something hopefully a suggestion or compromise .

Cryptic wrote:

Natsu, I think you're missing the point here.

The discussion is about how you're justifying the spacing, not the way it plays or how it feels to a player. No one has really implied they play poorly, they play fine and that's obvious to see. What the real issue is is that you're merging layers and not following one specific instrument/rhythm. You're following multiple in one pattern, which means you aren't properly representing the song. In order to make this a "rhythm game" you must select a rhythm to begin with, not trying to map them all via a dump-chart style. On top of that, you're suddenly giving those noises extreme intensity when in reality they're only more dense than previous notes, not more intense.



Overall, if you look at this, your first 5 notes are constantly changing instrument, which isn't okay. Your final 3 are finally following the same instrument. The best way to fix this is to decide which one you ARE prioritizing and which one you AREN'T. You can't really have it both ways, IMO.

Also how did this get buffed?

Are you seriously saying this is an issue right now?

I'd like to submit dequalification requests for the following maps for the following reasons:

https://osu.ppy.sh/b/1267222 | 00:24:627 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11) - (5,7,9) suddenly switches to following the drum only even though the combo itself is following the vocals as indicated by the usage of whistle hitsounds.
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/324828 | 00:21:552 (1,2,1,2,1) - Spacing of 00:21:885 (1,2) - increases due to piano, but 00:21:552 (1,2) - is following drums. Back and Forth pattern can be seen as a single pattern, because adding an NC doesn't change the arrangement of notes.
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/586841 | 00:51:766 (1,2,3,4) - (1) is following the vocal with the sliderbody as there is a drum at 00:51:877 - that would be mapped if the slider was mapping according to the drums. (3) however is mapped to the drum, but the sliderbody is still used to indicate a held vocal. (4) follows drum again.


I could keep going but you get the point. Merging different layers of a song into 2D space is exactly what you do when mapping. If you don't, the resulting mapping turns into what most 2008-2009 maps do, such as strictly following the vocals, or the drums. Unless you believe those maps are of higher quality than virtually every map mapped today, what you're pointing out is a complete non-issue and is trying to force issues onto a pattern that, frankly, doesn't seem to have any real problems. It's not hard to find arbitrary reasons to any pattern for why it may or may not fit with the music according to ones own subjective view. Just to use that last map as an example (https://osu.ppy.sh/s/586841) I could say the slider velocity in the kiai at 00:50:877 - is too high, because I think that section isn't that much stronger than what comes before it. Or maybe I could say the slider velocity at 00:53:544 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - should be higher than the rest of the kiai to better following the blow-instrument (whatever that one is). The difference between this and what the QAT is doing here is that what I'm saying is a subjective opinion about how I might've mapped that particular song, while you're all using your subjective opinion as objective fact.

On your point about "how it plays" and "how it feels" to a player. Do you really think a pattern plays well, if there is a disconnect between the pattern played and the song it's following? It doesn't. When we talk about a pattern playing well and that it fits the song, we don't mean just the pattern in isolation, but also how it relates to the rest of the map. I don't see why you think only mappers/QATs can see the pattern in relation to the whole map?

Also, let's take a look through what the QATs have said about the pattern and the map:

Irreversible wrote:

Hey Natsu, sorry to be a party pooper but I'd like to talk about these jumps again, and refer to our conversation we had.

00:50:569 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - Her voice is just not that spiking here, and it's really not anywhere else. The song is pretty stable, like I've explained you, so I really think that these jumps are very unjustified.

A good fix you've made was 01:02:719 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,4,1,2,1,2,3,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,1) - this part. I think the progressive increase is well executed. But as for the rest, I really think you'd need to rework those. You should look at P A N's parts, as I told you, I think he did a good job in catching the emphasis properly there.

I've adjusted some things, and the SR will drop a bit but it's still definitely in the proper range this map is supposed to be - in case you care about SR (which you should not in this case)

"You should look at P A N's parts, as I told you, I think he did a good job in catching the emphasis properly there."

Let's do that, then:
01:52:906 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1) - (1,2,3,4,5) - Constant spacing until it visibly increases at (6,7,8,1)

Now let's take a look at what Natsu's pattern does:
00:50:506 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1) - (1,2,3,4,5) - Constant spacing until it visibly increases at (6,7,8,1)

Oh wait, they follow the exact same logic.

Mao wrote:

Hey Natsu,

I'm disqualifying this because I think the issues Irreversible mentioned are valid and need to be adressed. As you have told me already that you are willing to change it, it might be nice to discuss different approaches within this thread as well.

Moreover personally I think the overall concept of the map is broken, not only the pattern Irre linked. Generally many jumps don't emphasize anything or go well with the music. Most instances just lack emphasis like 01:39:919 (1,2,3,4) - or feel unorgainzed like 02:33:919 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4) - . In my opionion you'll have to change your jump placement concepts drastically in order to fix these issues.

Anyways, I'd like to have some more discussion going on here before we proceed. For further assistance, feel free to PM us! Good luck for now /o/

At this point, Irre's issues are already addressed above. Now the issues addressed in Mao's post:

"Most instances just lack emphasis like 01:39:919 (1,2,3,4) - or feel unorgainzed like 02:33:919 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4) -"

01:39:919 (1,2,3,4) - Drums get more intense, so they get more emphasis. Same thing happens in the Collab, and as far as I know you would prefer to delete the whole difficulty and have the collab be the highest one.

02:33:919 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4) - Nice feeling, I feel that they aren't. Why are your feelings more valid than mine? But hey, I'm sure if you showed what you meant properly and actually showed what would be proper organization of these notes (doesn't need to be more than 3-4 notes in some neat arrangement), that still follows the general spacing emphasis of this section, that Natsu would be willing to change this.


Next is Okorin who's points I address at p/6004860

Next is Irre's post at p/6006437

Firstly, spacing emphasis is not exponential. It depends on the pattern and its surrounding patterns and notes. It's not as black and white as "big jump must be 10 times more intense".

Secondly, right below (p/6006471) he says that scaling the pattern down is not a solution.

So let's think about this for a second. The problem Irre is pointing out (which btw, is the exact same thing as in P A N's part, except that one is apparently fine), is that the spacing spikes too much compared to the surrounding notes. Why then, would scaling this down in any way not be a solution? The jumps get closer in spacing to the rest of the map, which is exactly what reducing a spike is. While I don't think scaling it down is even necessary, at least be consistent with your own argument.



Now you (and Okorin) talk about density, and how that isn't intensity. Here's an example:

Take a light green square, then take the same square, but make it out of small green dots evenly spread apart. Now, turn the light green suare's color closer to green, and increase the dots in the other square. Notice what's happening? Both colors are getting more intense.



Finally, the point of using other maps as justification:

They are not justification for it being fine, it's justification that it's a non-issue that QATs have had no issue with in the past 10 000 maps, and is suddenly a problem here only because of one persons subjective opinion. Either this is an issue for all maps that this appears in (in which case, go dequalify the majority of standard maps in qualified right now), or you're being selective and hypocritical against this map specifically. You can't be okay with it one place and not okay with it another, because then it's time to question if what you guys are doing is Quality Assurance, or "I like this map, I don't like this map".


Also, I forget who it was, but a previous QAT said that more people agreeing to it doesn't mean it's right or whatever it was. Certainly, someone must believe that to be true for the QATs, otherwise why would you need 4 different QATs all coming to agree with the other QATs, just to make their argument seem stronger?

Everything I wanted to say I think CXu already got it in there.
Also I really think you should be focusing on another maps as much as you focus on this one.

brb grabbing some popcorn

I also find it funny how you justify your patterns with other ppl's opinions

edit: oh and not everyone likes it, at least I don't.

Let me explain the instances I have mentioned here:

01:39:856 (1,2,3,4) - This one is the example I gave for the lack of emphasis. I don't think the pattern fits the music well due to the seemingly random usage of spacing emphasis. Have a look: You have used a rather big jump between 01:39:856 (1,2) - which would be fine as both drums are quite emphasized. But then you have 01:40:156 (3,4) - I barely hear a sound corresponding to that concept on 01:40:156 - yet the jump is much bigger than 01:39:856 (1,2) - . Also then you have got the really strong cymbal and vocal sound on 01:40:456 (1) - which has go fewer spacing than 01:40:156 (3,4) - even though there's less emphasis on 01:40:306 - . My suggestion would be to lower the general spacing, keep the spacing between 1,2 and 3,4 equal as the emphasis doesn't really build up and drastically reduce the jump between 2,3 as 3 lacks a strong sound. Moreover the distance to 4 should be increased for proper emphasis.

02:33:856 - This pattern just seems like there is not really a concept behind it. I mean I get that it increases spacing first because of the drum buildup and then decreases it again because of the slowdown. That's fine so far. On one hand I don't think that it works well seperating the pattern itself at 02:34:756 (1,2) - because the drums still buildup. I get that the split can also be seen as the vocals but here were are again at what Cryptic said:

Ranking Criteria Guideline wrote:

Avoid following multiple layers of the song if it is unclear what rhythm is prioritizing. Players should be able to discern what part of the song is being followed.

This is handeled way better in the Collab as there you have used sliders to seperate it which make it clear what you are doing there but here it's just messy.
Second issue I have with the pattern is the actual design of it. While in the Collab you kept it very simple with geometric shapes, but here I don't really see a logic behind it. Just look at all the notes of the first half together: Click!
You could either see 2,3 and 4,5 as groups of 2 each and 1,6 seperate similar to the design of 01:39:856 (1,2,3,4) - (which wouldn't make much sense musically) or as groups of two for 1,2; 3,4 and 5,6. In the latter case the patterning could at least be polished to be something likethis as a similar pattern to the one you have made in the Collab.

CXu wrote:

I'd like to submit dequalification requests for the following maps for the following reasons:

https://osu.ppy.sh/b/1267222 | 00:24:627 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11) - (5,7,9) suddenly switches to following the drum only even though the combo itself is following the vocals as indicated by the usage of whistle hitsounds.
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/324828 | 00:21:552 (1,2,1,2,1) - Spacing of 00:21:885 (1,2) - increases due to piano, but 00:21:552 (1,2) - is following drums. Back and Forth pattern can be seen as a single pattern, because adding an NC doesn't change the arrangement of notes.
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/586841 | 00:51:766 (1,2,3,4) - (1) is following the vocal with the sliderbody as there is a drum at 00:51:877 - that would be mapped if the slider was mapping according to the drums. (3) however is mapped to the drum, but the sliderbody is still used to indicate a held vocal. (4) follows drum again.

If you really think these maps should be disqualified, there's the Report Thread you should report these in.

Moreover Natsu asked me how to proceed now and there's a pretty simple answer as it seems like we won't reach a consensus now:

BN Rules wrote:

If the community member(s) requesting disqualification cannot reach an agreement with the mapper and you placed the last bubble or heart on a map, you cannot rebubble or requalify it. For osu!taiko, osu!catch, osu!mania, and hybrid sets, you may break these conditions once per map due to the low number of nominators.

i would agree with irre here
00:50:506 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) -

the only thing that really justifies the emphasis is the vocals, but it doesnt really spike that much with the rest of the instruments, and the vocals dont stand out THAT much so that it would require the amount of spacing used here.

especially 00:50:506 (1) - here, this seems really overdone imo
also back and forth jumps arent exactly the best fit here imo..

@Mao, I don't actually think they should be disqualified, because I don't think it's an issue in those maps, nor in this one, which is why I posted it here instead. If Cryptic really believes what he wrote though, then those 3 maps (and probably every qualified standard map right now) should be disqualified for the reason he posted. That's all.

Anyhow, I really appreciate the more in-depth explanations you write and possible suggestions to fixing said problem. This way there is actual substance to discuss about, such as what the suggestions improve, if something is lost from the old pattern, if it's possible to incorporate both ideas together etc. instead of forcing the mapper to fumble in the dark until they at some point coincidentally stumble upon a "solution" that the QAT decides is adequate (which is incredibly time-inefficient as well).

I'm sure Natsu has wanted to proceed since forever, but with the amount of QATs chiming in here saying different things without offering a solution, it's not exactly easy to proceed since all you get from them is a big "no" without any further clarification other than repeating the same thing again and again. But yeah, I really think the way people who are designated to specifically help mappers should at least show a willingness to help, which from most responses here doesn't seem to be the case at all, until your post now at least.

@Kibbleru: The way I see and listen to this song and map, is that the vocals are the center part, and the vocal is definitely spiking compared to the vocals of previous points, in terms of intensity due to the rapid singing compared to the rest of the kiai. Again, I don't think it's a problem to prefer a different interpretation either, but what's happening seems more like QATs forcing their interpretation of the song as the correct one, when the interpretation by the mapper is just as correct (as in, it's a subjective opinion on what works best).

Thinking that back and forth jumps isn't the best fit is fine, but that's kind of the same reason as anyone who think they do fit; it's just personal preference.

Mao wrote:

Moreover Natsu asked me how to proceed now and there's a pretty simple answer as it seems like we won't reach a consensus now:

BN Rules wrote:

If the community member(s) requesting disqualification cannot reach an agreement with the mapper and you placed the last bubble or heart on a map, you cannot rebubble or requalify it. For osu!taiko, osu!catch, osu!mania, and hybrid sets, you may break these conditions once per map due to the low number of nominators.

Does that mean that I am free to place a bubble, though?

I'll try to rebalance all the diff and give up my idea of hl the parts i feel the most, brb

Kibbleru wrote:

i would agree with irre here
00:50:506 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) -

the only thing that really justifies the emphasis is the vocals, but it doesnt really spike that much with the rest of the instruments, and the vocals dont stand out THAT much so that it would require the amount of spacing used here.

especially 00:50:506 (1) - here, this seems really overdone imo
also back and forth jumps arent exactly the best fit here imo..

But the vocals keep to the same pitch so that makes sense with back n forth jumps doesn't it?

Bakari wrote:

Does that mean that I am free to place a bubble, though?

If you weren't the original iconers, then yes (I had a chat with Mao in-game about this xd)

Alright, I see. As I disagree with the disqualification and I believe that Natsu's reasoning deserves a right to exist and appearas convincing enough, I would want to give it a try and bubble it.

With that being said, I am clearly not currently able to do so, as there is still a discussion going on. Natsu, can you, please, finalize your decision and stick to some opinion, so we get a clear idea of what you feel is the best solution right now? So, I can have a clear idea whether you still insist on your ideas or following the things you were suggested.

I'm doing some changes and I'll upload both diffs and see what people prefer

Feel free to get back to me once you(you personally and not anybody else) are content with the changes and willing to push the set forward, then.

I got asked to leave an opinion on this map, but I'm too lazy to retype things, so here you go:


Seeing the current situation it might be useless to post tho, idk

MrSergio wrote:

I got asked to leave an opinion on this map, but I'm too lazy to retype things, so here you go:


Seeing the current situation it might be useless to post tho, idk

Yeah hold on I'm making a lot of changes

MrSergio wrote:

I got asked to leave an opinion on this map, but I'm too lazy to retype things, so here you go:


Seeing the current situation it might be useless to post tho, idk

So emphasizing a buildup for the end of the vocal part is not a thing?
They might be of the same intensity but that part is increasingly building suspense for the last word, I can't understand why it's wrong to increase spacing like that.. It's a buildup, come on.

Why is it okay to not increase spacing at vocal changes but not to do the opposite?

Also what the fuck does it mean "listening to the song" I am really tired of hearing this lately, there are MULTIPLE ways to perceive a song, not just how you hear it, for example I understand COMPLETELY what Natsu is doing with those jumps.
I would have done the same because for me it's not random words of same intensity with same instruments, it's as I said a buildup before the last vocal which is spaced most of all the jumps so where is it wrong?

I have seen lots of examples that do the opposite, when the song is intense and switching tones and having indicators that increasing spacing would work, people tend to have the same spacing and when the last biggest change comes there's suddenly a jump that's half the spacing of everything before?

As some say we are not listening to the song, I think you are not listening to us, and are deluded that there is only your way of perceiving the song in your mind. There are more. And before you say it is not like that, it is clear to not only me but others that the methods and logic of the map has been explained several times yet you insist that sometihng is wrong because your views clash with Natsu's.

Please, be reasonable, understand that there are more than one or two ways to LISTEN to a song, I know I repeat it but apparently it is necessary.

Mao wrote:

Let me explain the instances I have mentioned here:

01:39:856 (1,2,3,4) - This one is the example I gave for the lack of emphasis. I don't think the pattern fits the music well due to the seemingly random usage of spacing emphasis. Have a look: You have used a rather big jump between 01:39:856 (1,2) - which would be fine as both drums are quite emphasized. But then you have 01:40:156 (3,4) - I barely hear a sound corresponding to that concept on 01:40:156 - yet the jump is much bigger than 01:39:856 (1,2) - . Also then you have got the really strong cymbal and vocal sound on 01:40:456 (1) - which has go fewer spacing than 01:40:156 (3,4) - even though there's less emphasis on 01:40:306 - . My suggestion would be to lower the general spacing, keep the spacing between 1,2 and 3,4 equal as the emphasis doesn't really build up and drastically reduce the jump between 2,3 as 3 lacks a strong sound. Moreover the distance to 4 should be increased for proper emphasis. Fixed

02:33:856 - This pattern just seems like there is not really a concept behind it. I mean I get that it increases spacing first because of the drum buildup and then decreases it again because of the slowdown. That's fine so far. On one hand I don't think that it works well seperating the pattern itself at 02:34:756 (1,2) - because the drums still buildup. I get that the split can also be seen as the vocals but here were are again at what Cryptic said:

Ranking Criteria Guideline wrote:

Avoid following multiple layers of the song if it is unclear what rhythm is prioritizing. Players should be able to discern what part of the song is being followed.

This is handeled way better in the Collab as there you have used sliders to seperate it which make it clear what you are doing there but here it's just messy.
Second issue I have with the pattern is the actual design of it. While in the Collab you kept it very simple with geometric shapes, but here I don't really see a logic behind it. Just look at all the notes of the first half together: Click!
You could either see 2,3 and 4,5 as groups of 2 each and 1,6 seperate similar to the design of 01:39:856 (1,2,3,4) - (which wouldn't make much sense musically) or as groups of two for 1,2; 3,4 and 5,6. In the latter case the patterning could at least be polished to be something likethis as a similar pattern to the one you have made in the Collab.

Well I reworked the pattern, I used 4 objects combos instead to make it somehow consistent and yes is geometric now

Extras

00:37:456 (1,2,3,4) - 1 and 2 are the jumps now and 3 and 4 has a lower spacing as you suggested

00:50:506 (1,2,3,4,5,5,6,7,8) - now 1 - 5 the layer that follow the vocals keeps the horizontal thing, but 6 7 and 8 are a triangle which would be intuitive to the drums change, I guess is a nice compromise

Reworked the previous kiai patterns, so the sliders has more spacing and it does make the jumps more balanced in the later parts, since the player already is playing an overall higher spacing

mmm I reworked the overall spacing of the slow sections now should be more balanced with the rest of the map, also I almost fully reworked the kiais and now they are balanced, also worked some more on patternings, specially the one you pointed out.

mmmm personnally I like the changes, even tho I really wanted to keep the horizontal pattern, anyways hope the things are better now o.o

Changes look good now, #1

Umm... sooo just my opinion but on the last diff i think the offset should be 332 instead of 256. When i changed the offset it seemed to match the ryhthm of the song more so than the offset u have currently but again thats my opinion. Don't know if you were messing with offsets currently or not so i wanted to mention it just in case

I'll check the other diffs and there offset timing and edit this post if i find anymore "offset issues" (again just my opinion)

No you need to redownload I added video and new MP3 a few days ado

Ooooo oops I'm an idiot. x.x
And here I thought I helped but instead you helped me XD
Thanks

Natsu, after the changes I think it lost some uniqueness but it's fine, the jumps reflect well on the vocals and the contrasts are more suitable, I still wish you could keep that back and forth pattern because I understand the logic behind it and it is more fitting to the map than this imo.
The jumps you put there now still reflect the song well at the change of the vocal spine and the spacing you reduced in some parts and adjusted also looks nice.

I hope this can move forward without further ado.

everyone getting that problem just delete and redownload, I changed the mp3 to fit the video better a few days ago

Talked with alacat a bit about the map:



Also I already pm Mao and Irre, so let's see what they say o:

Edit:

from Okorin:

01:05:956 (2,3,4) - 02:08:356 (2,3) - 02:56:356 (2,3) - increased the spacing

Increased the spacing a bit at the cymbals in the end

01:36:256 (1) - improved the slider shape

00:18:856 (1,2) - increased the SV and changed the slider shape

from Irre:

03:02:056 (1,2,3,4,5,1) - nerfed

00:51:406 (7) - fixed a hitsound

00:51:556 (8,1) - about this one I talked with a few players and they said the flow was OK

Full log with Okorin

2017-05-16 23:29 Natsu: Hi Okorin, Irre told me that you have an issue with some jumps at the end of my map and also Mao told me to talk with you before asking BNs~
2017-05-16 23:32 Okorin: btw while playing i thought that 01:05:956 (2,3) -  should stand out more through spacing 02:08:356 (2,3) - same, they seem really same-ish for what the vocals and stuff provide
2017-05-16 23:32 Okorin: i dont remember if there's one like that at the end of the last kiai or not
2017-05-16 23:33 Okorin: and for the ending i was just confused why you ignored cymbals from 03:03:106 - in terms of spacing
2017-05-16 23:35 Natsu: okay gonna fix these
2017-05-16 23:35 Okorin: also really minor but the two segments of 01:36:256 (1) - aren't parallel and it's bothering me so much that i have to write something about it
2017-05-16 23:35 Okorin: ok
2017-05-16 23:36 Natsu: any other thing?
2017-05-16 23:37 Okorin: not from my end, i was just asked to give my opinion about the diffspike jumps which you seem to have adressed in a way that makes sense, at least to me?
2017-05-16 23:38 Natsu: yeah, just Mao wanted me to ask to every one in the thread
2017-05-16 23:39 Okorin: btw why did you do nothing special for 00:18:856 (1,2) -
2017-05-16 23:39 Okorin: i mean you even have 02:38:656 (1,2) - being something special because it's the song title
2017-05-16 23:40 Natsu: mmm higher sv would work or a different slider shape?
2017-05-16 23:41 Okorin: anything that makes them stand out in comparison i think that would align with how you did this on most other instances of the song title
2017-05-16 23:41 Okorin: so
2017-05-16 23:42 Natsu: kk

what happened to the back and forths

obviously each kiai has three main intense parts
00:50:506 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - the singer goes back and forth between two notes, so the notes should also be back and forth, right up to 8.
01:00:106 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - this is the second intense part because the singer again goes back and forth between two notes rapidly
01:02:656 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,4,1,2,1,2,3,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,1) - last part of the kiai, you can clearly hear the rise in intensity

why are those first two parts intense? not only because the density of the vocals is higher (sing more notes per second) but because the singer alternates between two notes, which is very very noticeable, hence the back and forth pattern.

well, 01:00:106 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - is also back and forth, so why aren't the hitcircles perfect back and forth, like the other pattern? well, the first back and forth notes, the singer sings at an interval of a 3rd, with 1 note between them. also, the background instruments are playing at the tonic key, which is the main key of the song. this is why the song sounds so stable. hence, the flat back and forths to express the stability of the song at this time.

the second back and forth at 01:00:106 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - is NOT at the tonic key, and the singer sings at an interval of a 2nd, which is why the song sounds a little more unstable. this instability is expressed by the rotating back and forths instead of linear back and forths

finally, at the last part of the kiai we see some harmonic planing, which just means that the song is continually rising in key, this is very clearly heard. the map should be increasing in intensity again throughout this section, which it is, and nobody complained about it. i'm just mentioning it here so we get a better view of the bigger picture

in otherwords, the kiai is characterized by increasing instability, which is expressed by the stability of the first back-and-forths, and then the more unstable second back-and-forths, and finally the harmonic planing section which is not a single pattern at all.

the lynchpins of this progression are the three sections i have mentioned. just because they are not louder does not mean they aren't more intense. intensity isn't determined only by volume, but by the notes the singer is singing, the density of the vocals, the chord which the song is played at at that moment, and how this fits into the context of the entire song. please do not decrease the intensity of those jumps, and don't hesitate to revert the first section to purely back and forths, if you wish to.

mapping is not just about providing justification for every pattern, mapping is about expressing the feeling of a song. sometimes a mapper maps something he feels is right, and just because he can't provide 100% convincing justification does not mean he is wrong. don't hesitate to criticize, but please have some trust in experienced mappers.

Thanks for understand my map

I didn't have any more arguments to keep the pattern after 5 pages of discussion, that's why I changed the back and forth, the current pattern also work, so I hope I can get a compromise with it.
Oh and maybe I'll add the previous diff to the description or something.

well i gave you another argument just now. if you want, maybe you can try that and they will accept it ^^

melloe wrote:

well i gave you another argument just now. if you want, maybe you can try that and they will accept it ^^

Well if you read from here p/6002818 until the end, you'll notice that we said everything we could to keep the pattern, but it didn't convince the like 3 persons who complained about it and to be honest I'm really tired of arguing with people about it, since we discussed it too much, even I explained to Irre before it was even bubbled: p/5988334

and yeah, I really love my map and I want it to be ranked, after all the work I did for it, so I just decide to change it.

yeah, i read that. many of the QAT seem to not understand that how easily the patterns play is exactly the same thing as if the pattern makes sense... really stupid. why is exaggerated spacing bad? because it's too hard to play and thus does not reflect the song. but if it plays well then it does reflect the song, and there is no problem, it doesn't matter at all what the distance spacing number on the top right says. the only QAT who said anything good was mao...

but well, since you've decided to change it that's okay. the pattern you have now works anyway. good luck

I fell in love with the map when it got qualified and when updating just now I right away noticed the side to side/back and forth jumps are gone from the hardest difficulty.I came here to comment that but I see it's a big issue here somehow... The jumps played absolutely fine and were super fun + gave the difficulty that unique ''something I remembered strongly after the first play'' -thing to it.

.. but nuuu it has to be changed to something literally every map has because reasons lulz

I hope this map gets ranked soon anyhow, it totally deserves it. This is such an amazing mapset Natsu! Well done!

Neptune wrote:

I fell in love with the map when it got qualified and when updating just now I right away noticed the side to side/back and forth jumps are gone from the hardest difficulity. I came here to comment that but I see it's a big issue here somehow... The jumps played absolutely fine and were super fun + gave the difficulty that unique ''something I remembered strongly after the first play'' -thing to it. .. but nuuu it has to be changed to something literally every map has because reasons lulz

I hope this map gets ranked soon anyhow, it totally deserves it, this is such an amazing mapset.

thank you ! and sorry I had to change them T-T, anyways the changes I made also work xd

Rebubble since discussion has wrapped up and all 3 QAT's associated with this discussion have given the green light to rebubble now. Sorry I wasn't able to participate in this discussion, was quite busy irl. But I'm glad it got resolved without too much drama.

wew the bubble is back

Let's goooooooo finally

2 minutes after i played the pantsu diff it got re-qualified...coincidence? :thinking:

anyway regratz, song is addicting as hell

Monstrata wrote:

Rebubble since discussion has wrapped up and all 3 QAT's associated with this discussion have given the green light to rebubble now. Sorry I wasn't able to participate in this discussion, was quite busy irl. But I'm glad it got resolved without too much drama.

Gero wrote:

I'm glad that everything has been resolved now. So, since all QATs that were involved in the discussion are okay with the set, and the things were addressed by the Mapper, this should be good to go now.

We've changed some hitsounds through the difficulties to make them consistent, due that some of them were missed.

~ Requalified ~

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I spoke with Mao a bit during the whole thing, and from that discussion he said:

16:38 Mao: Something I want to clarify again is that the only actual QAT action in the thread was the disqualification in order to halt the ranking process so that we can discuss the issues that were addressed without rushing it
16:38 Mao: everything a QAT posted in there is their own opinion
16:38 Mao: which isn't worth more than any other opinion in the thread
16:39 Mao: nobody ever said that we force Natsu to do this
16:39 Mao: he can just find 2 more BNs and get it requalified

but from the way both of you write your posts, it seems like the QAT's opinions are indeed held higher than anyone else in the discussion. It might not be the case, it might not be supposed to be the case, it might be a misunderstanding between BN/QAT, or something else, but I just wanted to point it out since the impression I get from BNs and what Mao told me seems to not really match up.

Also, grats on the requalification!

Thanks everyone~