eww this isn't in loved. :/ but I already had plays and stuff :c dummy
Karoo13 wrote:
While this is dq'd can we talk about posthumous? The reverse slider streams are technically justified but the flow and spacing into the sliders at the end is ridiculous. I suggest that the sliders spiral with flow from the stream, smaller jump, and are visually arranged so they aren't hidden under slider tails/reverse arrows from earlier (maybe blanketed by the stream, since it is already circular arc). The spacing in the spaced stream is not that big. Replace all reversed sliders with circles and you will see what players actually play when doing this seemingly impossible stream. When it was loved, quite a few players had FC'd this part. For the spiral slider, I am very hesitant to put it in space with the stream in question because the sound where the slider hits is sudden and does not, subjectively speaking, fits if I put it in flow. Rather, a position at which it is not quite expected where the spiral slider is (but not unreadable) suits the sound perfectly.
Then there is the 0-stack part... I have come to terms with the fact that the middle notes of the triples are not mapped to any sound, but even then, the choice of where triples are inserted is inconsistent with the song, and the new combo structure is inconsistent with itself.
From 24-32 seconds, triples follow the high note of the scale, or mark the descending part of the scale. This much is fine, but then the last 2 triples break the pattern, as the scale does not descend on those. 00:32:344 (1) - needs to be removed, and 00:32:960 (1) - is maybe ok, but since the note following the triple actually goes up in pitch rather than down, this deserves different treatment from the others, I would suggest move 00:33:190 (1) - off of the stack, to around 38,100.
And maybe adjust the hitsounds and combos around that, i cant even tell what you were trying to do with the combos, but it should follow a consistent pattern through the stack. This is not a problem at all. You may have disabled hitsound and skin so you cannot see it is actually a Taiko pattern with taiko hitsound and taiko NC arrangement and that's why you find it so unreasonable? The rhythm is perfectly fine. I confess, it is slightly overmapped in this part but it is just how taiko is.
Gabe wrote:
While it is still in pending, is there a reason why the taiko difficulties have the 'Taiko' in their difficulty names?
Alright, all good! Thanks for the explanation.nold_1702 wrote:
It is the early naming system but has become obsolete. I include the word because I think it brings nostalgia seeing something obsolete being used again, matching the theme of the song.Gabe wrote:
While it is still in pending, is there a reason why the taiko difficulties have the 'Taiko' in their difficulty names?
I will trust you on the taiko combo structure, but this part explains why the rhythm is not fine. The second to last triple 00:32:344 (1) - is unjustified in the context of the rest of the pattern, as it is the only one mapped to an ascending scale. And I would like you to consider my comment on 00:33:190 (1) -nold_1702 wrote:
The rhythm is perfectly fine.Karoo13 wrote:
From 24-32 seconds, triples follow the high note of the scale, or mark the descending part of the scale. This much is fine, but then the last 2 triples break the pattern, as the scale does not descend on those. 00:32:344 (1) - needs to be removed, and 00:32:960 (1) - is maybe ok, but since the note following the triple actually goes up in pitch rather than down, this deserves different treatment from the others, I would suggest move 00:33:190 (1) - off of the stack, to around 38,100.
Karoo13 wrote:
nold_1702 wrote:
Karoo13 wrote:
From 24-32 seconds, triples follow the high note of the scale, or mark the descending part of the scale. This much is fine, but then the last 2 triples break the pattern, as the scale does not descend on those. 00:32:344 (1) - needs to be removed, and 00:32:960 (1) - is maybe ok, but since the note following the triple actually goes up in pitch rather than down, this deserves different treatment from the others, I would suggest move 00:33:190 (1) - off of the stack, to around 38,100.
The rhythm is perfectly fine.
I will trust you on the taiko combo structure, but this part explains why the rhythm is not fine. The second to last triple 00:32:344 (1) - is unjustified in the context of the rest of the pattern, as it is the only one mapped to an ascending scale. And I would like you to consider my comment on 00:33:190 (1) -
If you listen to the song only, and not the hitsounds you have inserted, 00:27:190 (1,1,2,3) - and 00:32:114 (1,2,1,2,1) - are exactly the same, yet mapped differently. The entire piano scale repeats itself, until 00:33:190 (1) - which is why it should be tapped the same way until that object. Since that object is where it stops repeating, I think it should be off the stack or distinguished in some other way.nold_1702 wrote:
There are changes in the rhythm and that’s the reason I made it ascending instead of repeating the rhythm before otherwise players may play the same pattern with different rhythms (that’s how taiko does it as well).
Any reason for you suggestion for movig (1) to 38,100?
Karoo13 wrote:
nold_1702 wrote:
There are changes in the rhythm and that’s the reason I made it ascending instead of repeating the rhythm before otherwise players may play the same pattern with different rhythms (that’s how taiko does it as well).
Any reason for you suggestion for movig (1) to 38,100?
If you listen to the song only, and not the hitsounds you have inserted, 00:27:190 (1,1,2,3) - and 00:32:114 (1,2,1,2,1) - are exactly the same, yet mapped differently. The entire piano scale repeats itself, until 00:33:190 (1) - which is why it should be tapped the same way until that object. Since that object is where it stops repeating, I think it should be off the stack or distinguished in some other way.
I am running out of ways to rephrase this, but 00:32:344 (1) - is an error and "but in taiko it is normal to overmap and change rhythm arbitrarily" is not a good justification.
tatatat wrote:
So whats up with the taiko custom hitsounds? Are they actually any different? I can't tell the difference between them and the default hitsounds. They aren't different. They are the original default hitsounds. Taiko players with their own skinned hitsound will use these custom hitsounds.
If they aren't custom, please remove them and change the sampleset to the default soft sample set. (I believe you were using the custom soft sampleset1). Sorry I cannot remove them because taiko players who have their own skin will notice the difference (and my pirpose is that they will experience nostalgia when using the old hitsounds). And it is not the soft sample that is used but the normal.
Thank you for contributing to the mapset. Your argument is:neonat wrote:
The rule is to prevent any kind of difficulty name which can determine the mapper. Only nold has several ranked with this name. They don't have to claim it to be theirs, it appears in songs that have no relation to this word.
The rule is a result of the consensus of the community, not peppy alone. His opinion is of course highly authoritative, but if the words of the rule is 'username' not 'user', the community consensus is clear. Also, what he said is open to interpretation as well.peppy wrote:
My goal here is to avoid the difficulty name becoming a way of determining the mapper. This is an unintended use and I will never stand for it.
Kuron-kun wrote:
A few additions to Mo's post:
[General]It is intended cause this part is more quiet.
- Might consider adding a higher volume to this section 01:05:344 - since it blends with the song a bit, specially in lower diffs, where you don't have a lot of triples to stand out. Would suggest 50% so you don't have to rework much of the volume later.
[Normal]It fits into the spread well and that's ok. First of all players playing normal aren't new players. New players play easy. And If they find it confusing to read, so be it. We cannot, let's say, to keep normal and easy totally readable to new players and then put all the patterns that require reading skill in hard. The jump will not be reasonable. And in my opinion, the patterns you mention are easily readable because of the use of new combo colour. Players know that they need to hit (1) and then (2) and then (1) in another colour.
- I'm really unsure about this diff's density, specially that it's more confusing and more dense than an usual Normal. Patterns like 01:40:421 (2,3,1) - and 02:03:190 (1,2,1) - might be really confusing to new players. You're also using 3 different snaps (1/2, 1/1 and 1/4) and adding too much complexity in these rhythms isn't the best idea. I'd suggest to nerf sections where you mixed a lot of snaps/rhythms but at least consider increasing the AR to 5.
Then you say the rhythm choice isn't a good idea. I disagree. there is no stream(1/4 notes) in the diff. All 1/4 objects are sliders. They require no skills as to reading nor streaming. Players see that they are sliders, they will click and hold.
[Hyper][yf's Insane]
- 00:32:575 (1,2,3,1,1) - Cool section but stacking kinda makes it look REALLY messy https://i.imgur.com/NhvGUGN.png. Consider adjusting these. Done
- 02:32:883 (2) - More than 1 reverse in a slider is already unexpected enough but adding a circle there might be unrankable as it's covering the repeat arrow and it makes it even more unexpected. Moving this slider a bit more to the right, where 02:32:729 (1) - doesn't cover the arrow is the best idea. ok
I find AR 8.5 just fine. It is readable to me and I am a 5-digit, the kind of player who this diff is designed for. This AR is reasonable. readability aside, this AR gives nostalgia because old maps are generally with lower AR.
- AR is way too low for diff's density... it's already confusing enough and I don't see much reasoning in lowering the AR to make it more less readable as the mapset isn't focusing in this. AR9 (or higher?) is much better.
[Drop's Extra]this is a mistake I believe. Done.
- 00:16:960 (1,1) - I'm pretty sure you didn't want to use this kind of snap here since it's impossible to sightread it.
-Mo- wrote:
The storyboard is really well made. However I just need to ask
done
It's not as if there's anything after the main SB that's worth leaving in anyway, and this is probably the source of why this map keeps crashing people's games.
While this is down I have a few other minor things to point out:
Kloyd's Extra
- 03:59:806 (1,1) - Should this not be spaced out like you did at 00:15:806 (1,1) ? It is a mistake. Thanks.
- 01:40:344 (3) - 01:41:883 (3) - 01:44:037 (3) etc - These places where the second object in a triple is using a soft sampleset sounds really weird for feedback to me, since surrounding this with objects that use the normal sampletset kinda drowns out the sound of these. Agree. Done.
- 01:51:652 (3,4,5) - I get that your stacks are all supposed to be custom, but I think this came out in an a less than ideal way. Agree. Done.
Storyboard
- 03:44:114 - The Bad Apple reference seems to have a noticable amount of aliasing, which is out of place when the other silhouettes in this scene have decent quality. Well, I cant find a better animation than this. For me it is not that noticeable I guess it is fine.
- 03:43:960 - There's some particles in the lower right that seems to have snuck their way in from the previous scene. Same kind of thing happens over at 02:13:883 too. They are not noticeable if you watch the SB in full speed. I will avoid fixing this manually because it will take me some hours to fix it.
The problem with your arguments is that you perceive mapping fundamentally different from how I regard them. Your way of mapping is that 'Oh there is a piano sound, I should map a note; oh there is another piano sound, I should map another note, I shouldn't put a slider, because I previously put a note for piano, therefore for all piano sounds there should be a note. Your way of mapping is mechanical (although I have seen none of your maps, from your mod I can see your logic), which I strongly disagree. Mapping is expressionist. It is not to be regarded as the slaughterhouse of creativity or a factory. It is about how the mapper brings up the vibe, how the mapper perceives the song and how the mapper expresses how he perceives it to be. It is nothing like a factory where all products are the same.MaridiuS wrote:
Hey nold, I thought discussion would have happened by now relating your rhythm choice for the 01:34:882 - this section. So in general I'm just struggling real hard to understand your intentions between multiple arrangements. Let's begin with choices in which I currently can not see any logic.still intuitive.
- 01:34:882 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - right off the bat you do some kind of 1/4 slider spam. The song does different sounds between 01:34:882 (1) - and 01:35:036 (2) - yet its mapped the same. Goes to most (1)'s vs (2)'s in this part. The sounds are different in pitch. One can only map a slider or a circle (or a spinner). A circle won't fit in this instance. So I mapped it with two sliders. Then one may wonder why are they the same despite the difference in pitch. I answer, they aren't identical, they are although the same in shape, yet different in rotation. Apart from SV I cannot envisage another way to better reflect this different in pitch, yet the pitch aren't that different drastically that allows me to change the SV so noticeably. Two sliders with the same SV are reasonable.
- 01:35:498 (1,2,1,2) - I can't see any reason for raised slider velocity, especially for 01:35:805 (1,2) - where there are no loud vocals no synth or no real change in the music that I can hear of to warrant this. first you said there should be some difference in (1) and (2) in the first pattern as suggested in the mod above, then when there's real difference you tell me there shall not be any difference? The pitches at 01:34:883 (1,2,1,2) are rather (but not too strictly) flat; whereas 01:35:498 (1,2,1,2) are changing from low to high and then from high to low. If I mapped them with the same SV it would be just the same as 01:35:498 (1,2,1,2), then the map wouldn't reflect the high low pitch changes.
- 01:37:959 (3) - You randomly put in a 1/2 slider without doing it consistently like here 01:35:652 (2) - for the same sound. at 01:37:960 (3) there is just a drum sound. at 01:37:344 (1,1) there are two sounds: drum and the how-should-I-name-it sound (you know what I mean). Check the sound track if you don't understand.
- 01:38:267 (1,2) - General the issue is that you're using 1/4's on really weak notes like (2) in same way as strong notes like (1) which follows the vocal. Same concern here 01:38:575 (1,1,1) - . I currently do not understand the appeal of this overmapping. There is no such issue. The fact that the sound at which (1) hits has a vocal does not make the sound in question stronger. And the sliders are to bring about the vibe.
- 01:39:498 (1,1,1,1,2,1,2) - This comes out of nowhere, there are multiple places where you can use this gimmick like here 01:34:882 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - where the first two sliders will be slow for the synth but in the part I linked second is just a 1/4 spam. The music slows down and thereby lower SV. It isn't a gimmick, it is just lower SV.
- 01:44:729 (1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1) - I don't hear any progression in the song or degression for such patterns. Also this gimmick and slidershapes don't resemble anything else in the section till now and you suddenly did these circular sliders without any strong change in the song. 01:47:190 (1,1,1,1) - same concern here.
I'm sorry but there are different ways to reflect a song. Just because I use one way to reflect the song in the first part does not necessarily mean I HAVE TO use the same way to reflect the song in the second. And there is no strict rule nor convention that restricts such creativity. Your argument is a dangerous one yo make. It applies to patterns as well, such as: you use a slider, note, note, then a slider in this pattern, and in the next pattern you use a note, note, note and then slider, the two patterns do not resemble each other. This is a ridiculous argument to make. We aren't robots. We do (and are allowed to) express the song in different ways.- On a side note this section 01:54:883 - : 02:02:421 (2) - 02:08:575 (2) - 02:12:267 (2) - when you follow the piano multiple times in a row with a triple it becomes recognizible and intuitive. But when you suddenly stop doing on these 3 sliders I just cannot grasp the rhythm as nothing becomes recognizable at that point even though the song didn't really change.
I mean I get that there's a lot of overmapping going on but it should be done with a reason which I don't see fitting as of yet. Once you reply I can offer some suggestion when I better understand your ideas.