forum

Halozy - S.A.T.O.R.A.R.E

posted
Total Posts
104
show more
tokiko

Lama Poluna wrote:

[tokiko]
  1. 01:14:893 - Я бы поставил тут ноту, ибо ты ставишь 01:15:398 (5) - тут. И вообще тут более громкие звуки, тогда да, можно было мисать, но не тут. здесь нет определённого звука. а дальше я поставил, потому что там нарастание в музыке есть
  2. 01:16:241 - И тут тоже очень хочется. тут я как мудак только на биты решил ставить
  3. 04:01:409 (1,2,3) - Если ты мапаешь тут так, то и 04:12:196 - отсюда тоже нужно так. разнообразие и всё такое. тем более мне в этом моменте слайдеры не так сильно понравились, как в том
  4. А если ты отклонишь то что выше, то должен будешь убрать ноту 01:16:747 (6) - отсюда, ибо ранее ты эти звуки не фоловил. оке
  5. 04:55:005 (4) - Мне кажется она лучше слышится и возможно играется на красном тике. а..?
  6. 05:05:454 (3) - НК?
  7. 05:16:241 (3) - ^ без нк оно всё лучше выглядит
спасибо
Deramok
pandahero
  1. 01:36:634 (2,3,4,5,6,7) - would look better if it followed the same curvature as 01:37:140 (1) - like http://puu.sh/vNf9l/1c4561027b.jpg
  2. 01:48:432 (7) - as opposed to 01:48:938 (9) - it covers two hits, so i'd suggest using something else instead. an easy way to do that would be one single on the head of 9 and then another one on top of 6 or putting a 1/2 slider on 6 as the start of 7 isn't on an important note and is thus more suited to be on a slider end as opposed to what is on it now
  3. 01:52:814 (4) - how about stacking this on 3 instead for more emphasis on the held vocal and the snare instead of the kick as you're emphasising the snares a lot in this part
  4. 01:51:466 (3) - either put the slider a halfbeat later or turn it into singles as you're putting a snare on the slider end, which is an inconsistency
  5. 01:54:331 (5) - would turn it into singles to catch the vocal better since it's fairly strong and you're usually reflecting the strong ones at least
  6. 01:56:185 (2) - this note is not supported by the song. better just go with another 1/1 or 3/4 slider.. or a filler 1/2 slider like 01:54:668 (1) - if you want to use though, even if i don't advise to do so because it fakes continuity. just having a single on both whites with a gap between works too, ad brings some variety at the same time, so that might be nice
  7. 02:03:685 (5) - i don't see what would call for this note, neither is it in the song nor is it anywhere else in the part. even for variety's sake it just doesn't fit into any logic i can find. could make 02:03:432 (4) - into two singles instead for example as that's suggested by the two kicks, maybe a stack even, with which you could maintain the rest of the pattern even
  8. 02:59:387 (1,2,1,1,2) - i don't know. it's weird how this and only this part follows the vocals and skips what is usually mapped, especially with 03:02:084 (1,2,3,4,5) - going back to the other instruments. all within a single section is offthrowing, if they were in two seperate iterations of the same melody or similar parts in different parts of the map, differing like that would be viable, but i don't see it fitting as it is here. so i'd suggest either mapping the rest of this part more on vocals or going with instrument focus at last for the first half of this part. in the second half it works since the new instrument syncs up with the vocals and it transitions well due to that. the fisrt option would be more true to what you've been doing all map
  9. 02:59:050 (3,4) - could be a tripple as well
  10. 03:19:612 (1,2,3,4) - with 03:16:915 (1,2,3,4) - you kept a semi circular motion with the previosu two notes, would be nice to do the same here for consistency. a simple ctrl j and repositioning like http://puu.sh/vNheI/287040da3d.jpg would be an easy fix
  11. 03:22:308 (1,2,3,4) - ctrl g individually like http://puu.sh/vNkII/b43e84e3d9.jpg to get the emphasis on 03:22:983 (1) - . you did that in the other occasions too
  12. 03:24:668 (1,2) - if you map these as 1/4 you'll also need to add a note on 03:24:584 - as it's part of the only thing that can be mapped as 1/4 here
  13. 03:25:679 (1) - is see why you'd do this but imo it's too offthrowing to skip the 1/4 on the fist half of it since that's what also makes up 03:24:668 (1,2,1,1) - makes it feel arbitrary. another skipped sound would be a kick on middle of it that can be used to with a slider to get the same effect of the end of the long sliders like http://puu.sh/vNhW6/629129f103.jpg
  14. 04:28:039 (3,4) - could be a tripple as the tripple in the song comes form the same instrument you're mapping.
  15. from 04:22:983 (1) - to 04:32:421 (1) - there's no apparent correlation or logic between the groups of objects. sometimes they are drop offs, completely isolated or follow circular motion. should probably look into having them in pairs, isolating all of them or connecting them. whichever suits your case.
  16. 04:49:275 (4) - if you want to put this on vocals you should also use them on at least the slider afterwards. seems utterly pointless or random otherwise
  17. 04:39:668 (2,3,1,2,3) - you made a point out of having long vocals initiate a string of circular or fluid/comfortable movement with 04:33:769 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - ,04:44:556 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - 04:49:949 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - and 04:36:971 (2,3,1,2,3,4,5) - , which makes sense. but here you change it right again on the second note 04:39:668 (2) - and on another occasion here 04:43:207 (1) - . one possible solution for fixing the first one would be http://puu.sh/vNjWf/972391cad9.jpg (04:39:162 (1) - and 04:41:522 (5) - stay in place, no other patterns need adjustments) and for the second one http://puu.sh/vNk3D/e1d92df40f.jpg (04:44:218 (5) - can be ontop of 04:44:893 (2) - )

    on a general note, you switch between 1/2 filler sliders and 3/4 sliders seemingly arbitraryly, or at least i didn't find the logic behind it. getting some unity or system into sections would be nice as like this i'm simply not sure what which is going for.

tokiko
  1. 02:26:690 (4,1) - 02:29:387 (4,1) - these two are uncharacteristically low spaced
  2. 03:46:915 (3,4) - i'd put these farther away from 03:46:578 (1,2) - for contrast. it's odd how they have less impact than 03:46:409 (6,1) - otherwise since it's an increase of intensity in the song. heck they even feel less important to play than 03:46:241 (5,6) - which shouldn't be the case. so that the spacing between the paris doesn't get too big, putting 6 a notch closer should be a good approach
  3. 03:57:702 (3,4) - same issue, but not as extreme
  4. 04:05:454 (1,2) - if you're going to transit to instrumental mapping at least do it at or into a new verse rather than in the middle of one. also as a whole (from 04:01:409 (1) - to 04:22:983 (1) -) the part feels lackluster coming right after the most intense one of the song and comparing it to the same part 01:49:275 (1) - here or the soundingly less intense part here 04:33:769 (1) - which is mapped more vividly still. in fact it feels more like 02:21:634 (1) - the part starting here. but it's structure is clearly different as it has more intruments, making it more intense overall and different vocal melodies.. by which i suppose the latter doesn't matter as you sadly ignore those alltogether anyway. even if it might share the same snares and kicks, it shouldn't be reduced to those. it's really a bit of a let down to have this section play so timidly like a slow bridge while it is actually the chorus. i'd really recommend upping the intensity of it overall and not just mapping the basic, underlying percussion beat.
  5. 05:08:825 (1) - compared to 04:44:893 (2) - 04:58:039 (1) - 05:14:218 (1) - this one hardly has any emphasis on it while representing the song. the other three have both higher spacing and a drop-off angle, neither of which this one has, so you might want to put this one in a different place too
some nice ideas to be found in this map, good luck with it
even though there's not enough vocal mapping for my taste v__v
Topic Starter
PandaHero

Deramok wrote:

pandahero
  1. 01:36:634 (2,3,4,5,6,7) - would look better if it followed the same curvature as 01:37:140 (1) - like http://puu.sh/vNf9l/1c4561027b.jpg
    oke~
  2. 01:48:432 (7) - as opposed to 01:48:938 (9) - it covers two hits, so i'd suggest using something else instead. an easy way to do that would be one single on the head of 9 and then another one on top of 6 or putting a 1/2 slider on 6 as the start of 7 isn't on an important note and is thus more suited to be on a slider end as opposed to what is on it now
    I mapped 7 slider on background sounds, so I need to keep it here
  3. 01:52:814 (4) - how about stacking this on 3 instead for more emphasis on the held vocal and the snare instead of the kick as you're emphasising the snares a lot in this part
    sounds like good idea, done
  4. 01:51:466 (3) - either put the slider a halfbeat later or turn it into singles as you're putting a snare on the slider end, which is an inconsistency
    Oh, you catch me
  5. 01:54:331 (5) - would turn it into singles to catch the vocal better since it's fairly strong and you're usually reflecting the strong ones at least
    But I mapped drums by this red-anchor slider, and then tried to emphasize vocal through the large spacing...
  6. 01:56:185 (2) - this note is not supported by the song. better just go with another 1/1 or 3/4 slider.. or a filler 1/2 slider like 01:54:668 (1) - if you want to use though, even if i don't advise to do so because it fakes continuity. just having a single on both whites with a gap between works too, ad brings some variety at the same time, so that might be nice
    Made a 3/4 slider here
  7. 02:03:685 (5) - i don't see what would call for this note, neither is it in the song nor is it anywhere else in the part. even for variety's sake it just doesn't fit into any logic i can find. could make 02:03:432 (4) - into two singles instead for example as that's suggested by the two kicks, maybe a stack even, with which you could maintain the rest of the pattern even
    This note comes from vocal, so I want to keep it here
  8. 02:59:387 (1,2,1,1,2) - i don't know. it's weird how this and only this part follows the vocals and skips what is usually mapped, especially with 03:02:084 (1,2,3,4,5) - going back to the other instruments. all within a single section is offthrowing, if they were in two seperate iterations of the same melody or similar parts in different parts of the map, differing like that would be viable, but i don't see it fitting as it is here. so i'd suggest either mapping the rest of this part more on vocals or going with instrument focus at last for the first half of this part. in the second half it works since the new instrument syncs up with the vocals and it transitions well due to that. the fisrt option would be more true to what you've been doing all map
    Oke, I mapped sounds, that usually map here
  9. 02:59:050 (3,4) - could be a tripple as well
    I talked about this place before, triple here sounds like overmap for me
  10. 03:19:612 (1,2,3,4) - with 03:16:915 (1,2,3,4) - you kept a semi circular motion with the previosu two notes, would be nice to do the same here for consistency. a simple ctrl j and repositioning like http://puu.sh/vNheI/287040da3d.jpg would be an easy fix
    I think that linear flow works better then circular here
  11. 03:22:308 (1,2,3,4) - ctrl g individually like http://puu.sh/vNkII/b43e84e3d9.jpg to get the emphasis on 03:22:983 (1) - . you did that in the other occasions too
    sure
  12. 03:24:668 (1,2) - if you map these as 1/4 you'll also need to add a note on 03:24:584 - as it's part of the only thing that can be mapped as 1/4 here
    In this part I mapped only wub sounds, so note in this place is not necessary
  13. 03:25:679 (1) - is see why you'd do this but imo it's too offthrowing to skip the 1/4 on the fist half of it since that's what also makes up 03:24:668 (1,2,1,1) - makes it feel arbitrary. another skipped sound would be a kick on middle of it that can be used to with a slider to get the same effect of the end of the long sliders like http://puu.sh/vNhW6/629129f103.jpg
    ^
  14. 04:28:039 (3,4) - could be a tripple as the tripple in the song comes form the same instrument you're mapping.
    As I said before, it sounds like overmap for me
  15. from 04:22:983 (1) - to 04:32:421 (1) - there's no apparent correlation or logic between the groups of objects. sometimes they are drop offs, completely isolated or follow circular motion. should probably look into having them in pairs, isolating all of them or connecting them. whichever suits your case.
    I just tried to emphasize sounds that I found interesting, maybe I did it too abstractly ;w;
  16. 04:49:275 (4) - if you want to put this on vocals you should also use them on at least the slider afterwards. seems utterly pointless or random otherwise
    I not planned to put it on vocals .-.
  17. 04:39:668 (2,3,1,2,3) - you made a point out of having long vocals initiate a string of circular or fluid/comfortable movement with 04:33:769 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - ,04:44:556 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - 04:49:949 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - and 04:36:971 (2,3,1,2,3,4,5) - , which makes sense. but here you change it right again on the second note 04:39:668 (2) - and on another occasion here 04:43:207 (1) - . one possible solution for fixing the first one would be http://puu.sh/vNjWf/972391cad9.jpg (04:39:162 (1) - and 04:41:522 (5) - stay in place, no other patterns need adjustments) and for the second one http://puu.sh/vNk3D/e1d92df40f.jpg (04:44:218 (5) - can be ontop of 04:44:893 (2) - )
    In this part I empasize background sounds again, not a vocal, so I'm afraid you understand this part in a wrong way
    on a general note, you switch between 1/2 filler sliders and 3/4 sliders seemingly arbitraryly, or at least i didn't find the logic behind it. getting some unity or system into sections would be nice as like this i'm simply not sure what which is going for.
    My logic is pretty strange thing, yup

some nice ideas to be found in this map, good luck with it
even though there's not enough vocal mapping for my taste v__v

Thanks!
Deramok
some clarifications on points i phrased badly, i didn't explain in enough detail or were misinterpreted in some other way shape or form

  1. 01:48:432 (7) - yes, there are two sounds on it, but the issue is the kind of sounds they are. you have a kick on the end and a weak synth on the head of the slider. in 01:48:938 (9) - you have it reversed, a snare on the head and a weak synth on the end, which is the prefered and more map characteristic way of doing it. putting 7's start on 6 would put the synth on a slider end and the snare on a head, just like 9 does it, and leave the kick open to be mapped via another note.
  2. 02:03:685 (5) - i simply can't hear a distinct sound here even if you tell me it's the vocals, i oly hear one on the end of the first slider and on the head of the next one, but nothing in between, it's a regular 1/2 beat from what my ears tell me
  3. 03:24:836 (2,1,1) - the point is, you don't map only on the wub sounds. there is no 1/4 in the wub, not even 1/2. if you only mapped that it would look like http://puu.sh/vO9bK/bcb821084c.jpg . this one 03:26:185 (1) - is (the 1/2 aspect of it, the 1/4 not really) at least excusable since there's a sole kick on the start. 03:25:511 (1) - the kick on this is part of a 3 note sounds pattern with another hit within 03:25:679 (1) - which would need to be mapped as well if you map the first one, which means that can't be used as a reason. lastly 03:24:836 (2) - is on no drum beat and no wub. the one thing supporting all of those is the synth 1/4 in the foreground, which would be comprehensibly implemented by adding notes to it's completion as described in the mod. so really it's map none or all of them. by how the map has been doing it untill here and how it does it afterwards, the first option seems more likely.
  4. 04:22:983 (1) - it's not about what you're following here, what you're following, rhythmically is completely fine and in tune with the rest of the map. what i was gettig at, was how the single parts correlate very variably and seemingly without a system between each other. with parts here i only mean sets of few notes with bigger gaps between them rather than a song section. so what i was suggesting was to give them some linkage, something that connects them. that can also be isolation, but even that would need to be systematical.
  5. 04:49:275 (4) - now this, the reason why i though you'd mapped this on the vocal is that you skipped a beat on the red tick in 04:48:938 (3) - , which is of the same nature as for instance 04:50:454 (2) - and not something you've ever done in this part
  6. 04:39:162 (1) - yes it's not following the vocals, i mistakenly used them to describe the issue because they sync up with what is responsible here, so that's my bad. said issue is the set of eight iterations of the instrumental rhythm which you are following. the points stay the same though, just without vocals being involved
  7. and about these occasions 04:28:039 (3,4) - the tripples i was suggesting actually are made up from actual to me very noticable 1/4 sound from the same instruments as the surrounding notes. but if you want to leave it unmapped, that is fine. however you shouldn't refer to the potential tripples as being overmapping as the reason to leave them out is the opposite, undermapping. for the sake of lowering the density in less intense parts, which is a common and acceptable mapping technique.
hopefully this clears the more seemingly nonsensical ones up, apologies for the inconvenience, decline as you will
and just in case, no kd for this ofc
tokiko

Deramok wrote:

tokiko
  1. 02:26:690 (4,1) - 02:29:387 (4,1) - these two are uncharacteristically low spaced that's okay!
  2. 03:46:915 (3,4) - i'd put these farther away from 03:46:578 (1,2) - for contrast. it's odd how they have less impact than 03:46:409 (6,1) - otherwise since it's an increase of intensity in the song. heck they even feel less important to play than 03:46:241 (5,6) - which shouldn't be the case. so that the spacing between the paris doesn't get too big, putting 6 a notch closer should be a good approach true, reworked a little
  3. 03:57:702 (3,4) - same issue, but not as extreme don't wanna ruin the cute look of this pattern
  4. 04:05:454 (1,2) - if you're going to transit to instrumental mapping at least do it at or into a new verse rather than in the middle of one. also as a whole (from 04:01:409 (1) - to 04:22:983 (1) -) the part feels lackluster coming right after the most intense one of the song and comparing it to the same part 01:49:275 (1) - here or the soundingly less intense part here 04:33:769 (1) - which is mapped more vividly still. in fact it feels more like 02:21:634 (1) - the part starting here. but it's structure is clearly different as it has more intruments, making it more intense overall and different vocal melodies.. by which i suppose the latter doesn't matter as you sadly ignore those alltogether anyway. even if it might share the same snares and kicks, it shouldn't be reduced to those. it's really a bit of a let down to have this section play so timidly like a slow bridge while it is actually the chorus. i'd really recommend upping the intensity of it overall and not just mapping the basic, underlying percussion beat. okay, remapped that part
  5. 05:08:825 (1) - compared to 04:44:893 (2) - 04:58:039 (1) - 05:14:218 (1) - this one hardly has any emphasis on it while representing the song. the other three have both higher spacing and a drop-off angle, neither of which this one has, so you might want to put this one in a different place too i think it's fine
some nice ideas to be found in this map, good luck with it
even though there's not enough vocal mapping for my taste v__v
Topic Starter
PandaHero

Deramok wrote:

some clarifications on points i phrased badly, i didn't explain in enough detail or were misinterpreted in some other way shape or form

  1. 01:48:432 (7) - yes, there are two sounds on it, but the issue is the kind of sounds they are. you have a kick on the end and a weak synth on the head of the slider. in 01:48:938 (9) - you have it reversed, a snare on the head and a weak synth on the end, which is the prefered and more map characteristic way of doing it. putting 7's start on 6 would put the synth on a slider end and the snare on a head, just like 9 does it, and leave the kick open to be mapped via another note.
    I get your point and remake this place
  2. 02:03:685 (5) - i simply can't hear a distinct sound here even if you tell me it's the vocals, i oly hear one on the end of the first slider and on the head of the next one, but nothing in between, it's a regular 1/2 beat from what my ears tell me
    Oke, I removed this note and remapped this place
  3. 03:24:836 (2,1,1) - the point is, you don't map only on the wub sounds. there is no 1/4 in the wub, not even 1/2. if you only mapped that it would look like http://puu.sh/vO9bK/bcb821084c.jpg . this one 03:26:185 (1) - is (the 1/2 aspect of it, the 1/4 not really) at least excusable since there's a sole kick on the start. 03:25:511 (1) - the kick on this is part of a 3 note sounds pattern with another hit within 03:25:679 (1) - which would need to be mapped as well if you map the first one, which means that can't be used as a reason. lastly 03:24:836 (2) - is on no drum beat and no wub. the one thing supporting all of those is the synth 1/4 in the foreground, which would be comprehensibly implemented by adding notes to it's completion as described in the mod. so really it's map none or all of them. by how the map has been doing it untill here and how it does it afterwards, the first option seems more likely.
    Made a stream instead of two kick sliders
  4. 04:22:983 (1) - it's not about what you're following here, what you're following, rhythmically is completely fine and in tune with the rest of the map. what i was gettig at, was how the single parts correlate very variably and seemingly without a system between each other. with parts here i only mean sets of few notes with bigger gaps between them rather than a song section. so what i was suggesting was to give them some linkage, something that connects them. that can also be isolation, but even that would need to be systematical.
    I will try it later, okay?
  5. 04:49:275 (4) - now this, the reason why i though you'd mapped this on the vocal is that you skipped a beat on the red tick in 04:48:938 (3) - , which is of the same nature as for instance 04:50:454 (2) - and not something you've ever done in this part
    Put two notes instead of 4 slider
  6. 04:39:162 (1) - yes it's not following the vocals, i mistakenly used them to describe the issue because they sync up with what is responsible here, so that's my bad. said issue is the set of eight iterations of the instrumental rhythm which you are following. the points stay the same though, just without vocals being involved
    Ah, you talked about making comfortable movements here, but I think it already smooth and also fun to play, if I do it more circular it will be boring
  7. and about these occasions 04:28:039 (3,4) - the tripples i was suggesting actually are made up from actual to me very noticable 1/4 sound from the same instruments as the surrounding notes. but if you want to leave it unmapped, that is fine. however you shouldn't refer to the potential tripples as being overmapping as the reason to leave them out is the opposite, undermapping. for the sake of lowering the density in less intense parts, which is a common and acceptable mapping technique.
    Oh, okay, then I'll leave it unmapped because I want to make this part less intense
hopefully this clears the more seemingly nonsensical ones up, apologies for the inconvenience, decline as you will
and just in case, no kd for this ofc
Thank you for all you done, you really helped me :)
Narcissu
i mapped the song but i fail .. because i can‘t find a BG better than ranked ver

[General]
  1. chorus should be hard than other part …… maybe except interlude, but it's relly too easy for now, try reference https://osu.ppy.sh/s/279025 https://osu.ppy.sh/s/380764
  2. avoid use similar colours because same colours is unrankable, adjacent colors need …… discrimination ?
[PandaHero]
  1. 03:16:915 (1,2,3,4,1) - 03:22:308 (1,2,3,4,1) - try this ↓↓↓ avoid repetition/overlap/horizontal and vertical

  2. 00:33:769 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - try this ↓↓↓ avoid monotonous/stagnation

  3. 01:52:645 (3,4) - 01:53:320 (1,2) - 01:57:027 (5,1) - 03:26:185 (1,1) - you stack too many. try more different permutations, same feeling with different array. such as https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/8166164 https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/8166100
[*]after you have an idea, you will repeat the idea once and once ... no matter how great your idea is, repetition is boring

[tokiko]
  1. 00:57:196 (3,4) - exchange better, imo https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/8166319
  2. 01:05:454 (7,8,1) - i think it's too closed
  3. 02:13:207 (4,5) - 02:15:904 (4,5) - 02:18:601 (4,5) - ctrl g all even numbers bar more lively. all is the same, it's too monotonous
  4. 04:01:409 (1,2,3) - I don't think it's appropriate .... and SV too slow here, imo --
  5. 05:00:061 (1,2) - 05:10:848 (1,2) - 1/4 better, because 05:00:061 (1,2,3) - is same
Topic Starter
PandaHero

Narcissu wrote:

i mapped the song but i fail .. because i can‘t find a BG better than ranked ver

[General]
  1. chorus should be hard than other part …… maybe except interlude, but it's relly too easy for now, try reference https://osu.ppy.sh/s/279025 https://osu.ppy.sh/s/380764
    Hm, for me parts before chorus is stronger than chorus itself, so I decided to map it more intense and put kiai on these parts. Also we just wanted to make calm map for this song.
  2. avoid use similar colours because same colours is unrankable, adjacent colors need …… discrimination ?
    I need all these colors for showing to players slow parts and sliders

[PandaHero]
  1. 03:16:915 (1,2,3,4,1) - 03:22:308 (1,2,3,4,1) - try this ↓↓↓ avoid repetition/overlap/horizontal and vertical


    But I like how my repetitive and overlap sliders emphasize wubs here ;w;
  2. 00:33:769 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - try this ↓↓↓ avoid monotonous/stagnation
    Since vocal here is repeating, I decided to repeat paterns and gradually increase spacing, because vocal is become louder and stronger.
  3. 01:52:645 (3,4) - 01:53:320 (1,2) - 01:57:027 (5,1) - 03:26:185 (1,1) - you stack too many. try more different permutations, same feeling with different array. such as https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/8166164 https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/8166100
You right, I stacking a lot, so it's become a system and I can't see anything wrong with it
[*]after you have an idea, you will repeat the idea once and once ... no matter how great your idea is, repetition is boring
Boring, but effective :)
Thank you for checking!
tokiko

Narcissu wrote:

[tokiko]
  1. 00:57:196 (3,4) - exchange better, imo https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/8166319 ok
  2. 01:05:454 (7,8,1) - i think it's too closed actually that's okay
  3. 02:13:207 (4,5) - 02:15:904 (4,5) - 02:18:601 (4,5) - ctrl g all even numbers bar more lively. all is the same, it's too monotonous yeah,
    sure

  4. 04:01:409 (1,2,3) - I don't think it's appropriate .... and SV too slow here, imo -- just wanted to follow the vocals one time
  5. 05:00:061 (1,2) - 05:10:848 (1,2) - 1/4 better, because 05:00:061 (1,2,3) - is same i don't think i understood you correctly
jonathanlfj
sorry for the delay

[General]
There is not much green in the background, so I'd say swap the green combo colours for something else (a hue of purple would be nice)

[<3]
00:43:881 (3,4) - there are really strong 1/4s here that shouldn't be ignored imo, see if you can swap this part out for some 1/4 slider patterns?
01:04:780 (1,2,3,4,5) - curving this a bit more makes it smoother to play
01:27:365 (1) - make the end soft hitsound so it doesnt stand out
01:47:926 (5) - NC
03:09:921 - there is a 1/4 beat here that would be nice to cover
03:37:140 (1) - should be a finish on the start
03:48:263 (2) - if you curve this one upwards it creates a nice wrap around effect (also makes it look like an eye xD)
03:52:645 (1,2) - seems you ran out of playfield area to place the circle at a natural angle, in this case i would just stack it
04:13:881 - i dont think this one was meant to be 5% volume? Also the previous slider ends are better to be soft sample to get the right silencing effect
04:28:039 (3,4) - this part would be cool if it were two fast 1/4 sliders (similar effect as 04:25:342 (1))
04:38:320 (4,5) - the thing you did with smaller spacing is cool, but some patterns later on starts to get too close (e.g. 04:47:758 (2,3)), its a little deceiving so maybe you can up the spacing slightly?
05:11:353 (3,1) - this is surprisingly hard to play without a 100 on the slow slider, you can rotate 05:11:522 (1) counterclockwise so the start is closer to 05:11:353 (3)

Really nice concepts in this one, only thing that concerns me a little is the wub section at 03:15:567; the short straight 1/4 slider patterns feels too underwhelming and repetitive for a section with this much variance. I recommend you try some red node sliders as well as direction changes that are non-linear (for example, tokiko's section with similar rhythm is excellent due to the use of subtle direction changes)
Topic Starter
PandaHero

jonathanlfj wrote:

sorry for the delay

[General]
There is not much green in the background, so I'd say swap the green combo colours for something else (a hue of purple would be nice)
Oh, sounds like a good idea

[<3]
00:43:881 (3,4) - there are really strong 1/4s here that shouldn't be ignored imo, see if you can swap this part out for some 1/4 slider patterns?
01:27:365 (1) - make the end soft hitsound so it doesnt stand out
01:47:926 (5) - NC
03:09:921 - there is a 1/4 beat here that would be nice to cover
03:37:140 (1) - should be a finish on the start
04:13:881 - i dont think this one was meant to be 5% volume? Also the previous slider ends are better to be soft sample to get the right silencing effect
04:28:039 (3,4) - this part would be cool if it were two fast 1/4 sliders (similar effect as 04:25:342 (1))
04:38:320 (4,5) - the thing you did with smaller spacing is cool, but some patterns later on starts to get too close (e.g. 04:47:758 (2,3)), its a little deceiving so maybe you can up the spacing slightly?



Really nice concepts in this one, only thing that concerns me a little is the wub section at 03:15:567; the short straight 1/4 slider patterns feels too underwhelming and repetitive for a section with this much variance. I recommend you try some red node sliders as well as direction changes that are non-linear (for example, tokiko's section with similar rhythm is excellent due to the use of subtle direction changes)
Fixed all except 1/4 on 00:43:881, because I prefer to follow only vocal in this part. Reworked wub part a bit.
Thank you!
tokiko

jonathanlfj wrote:

hello my russian friend

[<3]
01:04:780 (1,2,3,4,5) - curving this a bit more makes it smoother to play sure
03:48:263 (2) - if you curve this one upwards it creates a nice wrap around effect (also makes it look like an eye xD) okk
03:52:645 (1,2) - seems you ran out of playfield area to place the circle at a natural angle, in this case i would just stack it i can't remember why i did that overlap but yeah, stacked
05:11:353 (3,1) - this is surprisingly hard to play without a 100 on the slow slider, you can rotate 05:11:522 (1) counterclockwise so the start is closer to 05:11:353 (3) Demetori - Kuuchuu ni Shizumu Kishinjou ~ Counter-Clock World

thank you!
tokiko
sooqa
Topic Starter
PandaHero
Updated owo
Lama Poluna
ПрактическиХайп
jonathanlfj
ok
Topic Starter
PandaHero
Woah, my first bubble, thank you :o
Nao Tomori
hi! i have some questions about this map!

the main one is just explained by this: 03:15:567 - why is this section mapped completely differently from 04:55:342 - ? the sv is totally different, like it's 2 different maps stuck into one.

yes, it's a collab, but that doesn't mean you should completely abandon any concept of consistency through the map.

this repeats on every part; it's like you both mapped the song, but with completely different techniques, rhythms and patterning.

other random stuff

01:16:578 (4,5) - why is this a double >.> there's nothing suggesting a double here as far as i can tell

01:22:814 (4,6) - you used overlap for all other sliders in the section, why perfect stack here?

01:49:780 (2,3) - this offbeat thing doesn't really fit with your rhythm in the section cuz you're generally focusing on vocals (like 01:53:320 (1,2,3,4,5) - for example) and this one skips over one

03:15:567 - this entire section - completely ignoring the melody in the part where the melody is perhaps the strongest is not really a good choice imo. you *can* follow the random background wubs entirely and completely ignore what makes the song a song and not just a bunch of sounds, but a better way to go about things would be to incorporate the background track into the melody
the 1/1 gaps feel especially lame and underwhelming; you finish following these super fast long sliders and then sort of waddle on down slowly to the next one, there isn't really any feeling of pressure or constant motion so the effect of the high sv is completely lost i think.

03:46:578 (1,2,3,4) - what's up with the massive spacing contrast? the melody is going up and down, but this is way more different in spacing than what the song provides imo

03:47:926 (1,2,3) - this pattern is cool and all but you never ever do something like this anywhere else in the map so it's super unexpected and hard to read

04:01:409 - this section - the rhythm choice starts of very very vocal focused, with stuff like 04:01:409 (1,2,3) - obviously setting the tone, same for 04:03:769 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - and so on which follow the vocals. but then 04:05:792 (6,7,8,1,2,3,1,2,3,4,5) - it just randomly goes off into 1/2 spam everywhere, completely ignoring the vocals. like 04:06:297 (1,2) - is on drums, 04:06:634 (3) - is a vocal,04:07:140 (2) - the slider end of this is a vocal that should have been held out, 04:08:488 (2,3,4,5,6,7) - there's a long held out vocal here but it's all 1/2 circles etc etc. so there isnt any feeling of following one specific track in the song any more.

04:28:039 (1,2,1) - minor thing but why are these kicksliders, this section is quite calm so using kicksliders suddenly seemed out of place

anyway yeah, i think the ridiculous lack of cohesion is a really big detriment to this map; i told himei the same thing when he asked me to check this, and i told you as well when you asked me; seems like nothing i said was taken into account =/

not gonna pop cuz i'm gonna be dead for a month, but please, to any next bn, take this into consideration: the map is half of the song mapped by one person in one style and the other half mapped by another person in a completely different style with no internal consistency between the 2 parts.
Mirash
don't force your 2017 mapping view please
hi-mei
he is not forcing it. otherwise he would bubble-pop it

but if someone gonna push this further, i can guarantee a drama for sure.
Topic Starter
PandaHero

Naotoshi wrote:

hi! i have some questions about this map!

the main one is just explained by this: 03:15:567 - why is this section mapped completely differently from 04:55:342 - ? the sv is totally different, like it's 2 different maps stuck into one.

The reason why these two parts mapped in a different way is a mood of the song. Wubs in my part are more loud and bright than in tokiko's part, so I decided to use high sv and tried my best at mapping wubs. His part is calm, because song is almost over, that's why he used a lower sv than in my part.

yes, it's a collab, but that doesn't mean you should completely abandon any concept of consistency through the map.

this repeats on every part; it's like you both mapped the song, but with completely different techniques, rhythms and patterning.

Just one simple question: if our parts is so different, why you didn't separate your suggestions for two people but wrote it as a one wall of text?

We used about the same rhythm, slider forms and spacing. Only one thing that is different are the patterns, but I can't see anything wrong with it, we shouldn't map as a one person.



other random stuff

01:49:780 (2,3) - this offbeat thing doesn't really fit with your rhythm in the section cuz you're generally focusing on vocals (like 01:53:320 (1,2,3,4,5) - for example) and this one skips over one

When I mapped this part I thought I follow the drums oO

03:15:567 - this entire section - completely ignoring the melody in the part where the melody is perhaps the strongest is not really a good choice imo. you *can* follow the random background wubs entirely and completely ignore what makes the song a song and not just a bunch of sounds, but a better way to go about things would be to incorporate the background track into the melody
the 1/1 gaps feel especially lame and underwhelming; you finish following these super fast long sliders and then sort of waddle on down slowly to the next one, there isn't really any feeling of pressure or constant motion so the effect of the high sv is completely lost i think.
this is also the reason why I mapped wubs on 03:15:567 and igonre the melody that I already mapped in the first kiai

Wubs is the strongest thing I hear in this moment, so I decided to map it and ignore other sounds. I understand that this decision is unusual for the modern mapping, but it works well with my style imo. Also this is the same rhythm as in tokiko's part, so we keep consistency in that way :)

04:28:039 (1,2,1) - minor thing but why are these kicksliders, this section is quite calm so using kicksliders suddenly seemed out of place

These kicksliders came with Jonathan's mod and have the same effect as this slider - 04:25:342 (1), it emphasize background wub sound.

anyway yeah, i think the ridiculous lack of cohesion is a really big detriment to this map; i told himei the same thing when he asked me to check this, and i told you as well when you asked me; seems like nothing i said was taken into account =/

not gonna pop cuz i'm gonna be dead for a month, but please, to any next bn, take this into consideration: the map is half of the song mapped by one person in one style and the other half mapped by another person in a completely different style with no internal consistency between the 2 parts.

@Mirash, thank you for protecting me, dear.

@hi-mei, drama is not my way of solving a problems, don't worry.
Naxess
Greetings

The part from 01:27:702 - to 02:10:848 - is completely different conceptually than from 03:39:836 - to 04:22:983 - , despite being the exact same parts in the song. It would be much better in my opinion if the two parts were consistent. They don't have to be the same, but they should at least be recognizable and similar in principle. I understand you're different mappers and map in different ways, but that's not an excuse to have two same parts in the song be this different in the map. This is the reason for the pop.

Some examples comparing the two
  • In blue/purple 01:28:039 - 01:30:061 - 01:32:084 - these are circles with 1/4 gaps after 3/4 sliders, but in red/pink that idea is completely gone. 03:40:174 - is now the head of a 1/2 high sv slider, 03:42:196 - a slider tail of a 1/1 with low sv and 03:44:218 - is also a slider tail, for example. There's no sight of any 3/4 with a circle stacked under the tail anywhere.

    Then in red/pink there's an sv concept which isn't used in the blue/purple part. 03:39:836 - is high SV, represented by brighter colors, and 03:41:859 - is lower, instead represented by dimmer colors. This is nowhere to be seen in the other section. 03:41:859 - and is now much more distinct than 01:29:724 - , despite being the same parts in the song. 01:33:095 - and 03:45:230 - would also have different expressions, making it seem like they're equally different in the song.

    Red/pink had an interesting idea at 03:47:926 (1,2,3) - , but because it's the only instance of this pattern in the map, it becomes sort of sudden and unexpected. If 01:35:792 - was done in the same way, and this would be introduced earlier in the map as well, players would probably recognize it faster. Same idea can be applied to 01:22:814 (4,6) - and it's visuals compared to 01:17:421 (4,6) - and 01:20:117 (1,1,1,1) - .

    Meanwhile blue/purple has 01:28:207 (3,4) - 01:33:601 (3,4) - 01:38:994 (3,4) - as stacked slider heads, yet red/pink has them as circles instead 03:40:174 (2,3,4) - 03:45:567 (2,3,4) - 03:50:960 (2,3,4) - . Anyway you get the idea.
Same sort of reasoning can be used for 01:49:275 - and 04:01:409 - .

They're all fine on their own and would do well in their own individual maps, but combining this many different ideas into the same map, mapping the two parts completely differently, would just ruin the consistency between them and be detrimental to the map as a whole. You'd want the player to be able to know in which part of the song they are purely by the notes and gameplay. If a parts play similarly, they're probably similar in the song too.

It would've been easier if similar parts had been arranged so the same mapper took care of them, rather than taking turns, but up to you ofc. If it's done for diversity/variation, it's not very well executed since the two parts aren't even nearly alike. If it genuinely is for variation and you'd like to keep that aspect, try varying it consistently instead by making ideas from both sections appear frequently, rather than changing completely.

Here's my suggestion: Give 01:27:702 - 03:39:836 - to one mapper, and then give 01:49:275 - 04:01:409 - to the other. This will allow you to keep your mapping styles while keeping things consistent and varied in accordance with the song. However, this also means that you'll both have a section removed and one remapped by the other mapper in it's place, ~22 seconds each.

TL;DR: Consistency needs work
Natteke desu

Naxess wrote:

I understand you're different mappers and map in different ways, but that's not an excuse to have two same parts in the song be this different in the map. This is the reason for the pop.
When this became a reason to pop if you don't mind? Don't get me wrong, but personally i can't remember a single time when this was a problem for collabs.
Natsu
the main reason to make a collab is to show how different mappers interpret a song, not to be consistent if so making a collab does't make much sense IMO, maybe I'll check this later if I have some free time
Natteke desu
Welp, i do believe "Avoid major composition differences in similar sections of a song. The basic spacing and rhythm should be similar, while patterning can vary. This ensures that rhythm and intensity in all similar sections reflect a song similarly." guidline is more about solo diffs, not to mention, that difficulty in these both parts is similliar such as rhythmics. So uuuh, i don't see where this diff breaks any guidline or rule, what means i don't really see a reason to remove the bubbel.

just my couple of cents



UPD: i don't like this diffname
Delis
elbis I prefer old bg
m3gB3g

Delis wrote:

elbis I prefer old bg
Me too
Topic Starter
PandaHero

m3gB3g wrote:

Me too
I don't like your avatar, you know?

And yeah, I'll answer to people later
Lama Poluna

Naxess wrote:

The part from 01:27:702 - to 02:10:848 - is completely different conceptually than from 03:39:836 - to 04:22:983 - , despite being the exact same parts in the song. It would be much better in my opinion if the two parts were consistent. They don't have to be the same, but they should at least be recognizable and similar in principle. I understand you're different mappers and map in different ways, but that's not an excuse to have two same parts in the song be this different in the map. This is the reason for the pop.

This is collab! Parts may differ from each other. It is certainly not the reason for pop.
Reiji-RJ
What the heck new rules
Natteke desu
no drama thanks
zev
@panda this could equally swing in both ways you could easily tip the scales in your favour by saying what that mean spirited BN spewed out is subjective!!@!but you risk stalling the map from getting ranked or just considertogether some changes!!








yes collabs can be more lenient in variety but I think it's a lil tad too far you could just do sometimes around the same rhythm with different patterns so it still compliments each, GL!
Okoratu
fwiw the main rhythm used is pretty similar, the thing that varies most is sv usage but not difficulty?


the 3/4 sliders in 04:01:409 - this part are kinda lol to hit accurately because all of them look so similar to what was done before lol

04:16:747 (2,3) - this is so random in this section's context you dont ever do bluetick starting 1/4 sliders so why now
but yeah especially with dnb songs like these the map would actually suffer from having less variety lol
03:19:612 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3) - this entire part seems underhitsounded compared to 04:55:342 -

only concern i have about difficulty comparison between both sections mentioned in the pop is 04:01:409 - which is indeed a ton easier than the corresponding part in 01:49:275 -

would make sure that rhythms used are at least similar (which they are)
and that difficulty is expressed appropriately
Topic Starter
PandaHero

Naxess wrote:

Greetings

The part from 01:27:702 - to 02:10:848 - is completely different conceptually than from 03:39:836 - to 04:22:983 - , despite being the exact same parts in the song. It would be much better in my opinion if the two parts were consistent. They don't have to be the same, but they should at least be recognizable and similar in principle. I understand you're different mappers and map in different ways, but that's not an excuse to have two same parts in the song be this different in the map. This is the reason for the pop.

Some examples comparing the two
  • In blue/purple 01:28:039 - 01:30:061 - 01:32:084 - these are circles with 1/4 gaps after 3/4 sliders, but in red/pink that idea is completely gone. 03:40:174 - is now the head of a 1/2 high sv slider, 03:42:196 - a slider tail of a 1/1 with low sv and 03:44:218 - is also a slider tail, for example. There's no sight of any 3/4 with a circle stacked under the tail anywhere.

    Then in red/pink there's an sv concept which isn't used in the blue/purple part. 03:39:836 - is high SV, represented by brighter colors, and 03:41:859 - is lower, instead represented by dimmer colors. This is nowhere to be seen in the other section. 03:41:859 - and is now much more distinct than 01:29:724 - , despite being the same parts in the song. 01:33:095 - and 03:45:230 - would also have different expressions, making it seem like they're equally different in the song.

    Red/pink had an interesting idea at 03:47:926 (1,2,3) - , but because it's the only instance of this pattern in the map, it becomes sort of sudden and unexpected. If 01:35:792 - was done in the same way, and this would be introduced earlier in the map as well, players would probably recognize it faster. Same idea can be applied to 01:22:814 (4,6) - and it's visuals compared to 01:17:421 (4,6) - and 01:20:117 (1,1,1,1) - .

    Meanwhile blue/purple has 01:28:207 (3,4) - 01:33:601 (3,4) - 01:38:994 (3,4) - as stacked slider heads, yet red/pink has them as circles instead 03:40:174 (2,3,4) - 03:45:567 (2,3,4) - 03:50:960 (2,3,4) - . Anyway you get the idea.
Same sort of reasoning can be used for 01:49:275 - and 04:01:409 - .

They're all fine on their own and would do well in their own individual maps, but combining this many different ideas into the same map, mapping the two parts completely differently, would just ruin the consistency between them and be detrimental to the map as a whole. You'd want the player to be able to know in which part of the song they are purely by the notes and gameplay. If a parts play similarly, they're probably similar in the song too.

It would've been easier if similar parts had been arranged so the same mapper took care of them, rather than taking turns, but up to you ofc. If it's done for diversity/variation, it's not very well executed since the two parts aren't even nearly alike. If it genuinely is for variation and you'd like to keep that aspect, try varying it consistently instead by making ideas from both sections appear frequently, rather than changing completely.

Here's my suggestion: Give 01:27:702 - 03:39:836 - to one mapper, and then give 01:49:275 - 04:01:409 - to the other. This will allow you to keep your mapping styles while keeping things consistent and varied in accordance with the song. However, this also means that you'll both have a section removed and one remapped by the other mapper in it's place, ~22 seconds each.

TL;DR: Consistency needs work

Usually people called it "variations of the same rhythm", and this is normal even for solo maps and especially for collabs. In these two parts (01:27:702 and 03:39:836) we following the same instrument, rhythm, intensity and difficulty of these parts are pretty same. I think that our parts doesn't needs to look alike, there is no such rule or guideline in RC for collab parts, it doesn't say that variations need to be consistent, then I guess we free to make our parts "different conceptually" without breaking rules. For me and other players these parts feel exactly the same, even with all this sv changes in tokiko's part, because he made his part intensive by using fast sliders (and some jumps, of course), while I did it by using jumps.

If we did this map as you say, it would be boring and monotonous dnb map, which is absolutely not suitable for this song. We did everything to show how beautiful and interesting this song is, how two people can see this song and share their vision to others. If I wanted to make this map consistent, I would map it by myself.

The only thing that I agree with is the difficulty in 04:01:409 part, which doesn't correspond to my part. I'll talk to my collab partner and will be waiting for his response.
@Natsu, wow, really unexpected to see you here, but I appreciate your help, thank you o.o
@EvilElvis, thanks for your cents
@Delis, sorry cutie, but I prefer new bg :)
@Lama Poluna, totally agree with you, this is the first time I see such reason for bubble pop.
@Reiji-RJ, I dunno, this rules is strange for me too.
@zev yeah, I know, I believe that we can find a compromise.

Okorin wrote:

fwiw the main rhythm used is pretty similar, the thing that varies most is sv usage but not difficulty?
03:19:612 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3) - this entire part seems underhitsounded compared to 04:55:342 -
My bad, I should to put drum hitwhistles on the kicksliders in my part.
only concern i have about difficulty comparison between both sections mentioned in the pop is 04:01:409 - which is indeed a ton easier than the corresponding part in 01:49:275 -
I agree with you, let's see what tokiko think about it.
would make sure that rhythms used are at least similar (which they are)
and that difficulty is expressed appropriately
Thanks Okorin and others :)
Sieg

EvilElvis wrote:

drama thanks
Topic Starter
PandaHero

Sieg wrote:

EvilElvis wrote:

drama thanks

What drama, where? o.o
tokiko

Naotoshi wrote:

01:16:578 (4,5) - why is this a double >.> there's nothing suggesting a double here as far as i can tell listen on 25%

01:22:814 (4,6) - you used overlap for all other sliders in the section, why perfect stack here? because why not?

03:46:578 (1,2,3,4) - what's up with the massive spacing contrast? the melody is going up and down, but this is way more different in spacing than what the song provides imo that's okay

03:47:926 (1,2,3) - this pattern is cool and all but you never ever do something like this anywhere else in the map so it's super unexpected and hard to read maybe there's only 2 places where i can do something like that? and the other place not in my part

04:01:409 - this section - the rhythm choice starts of very very vocal focused, with stuff like 04:01:409 (1,2,3) - obviously setting the tone, same for 04:03:769 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - and so on which follow the vocals. but then 04:05:792 (6,7,8,1,2,3,1,2,3,4,5) - it just randomly goes off into 1/2 spam everywhere, completely ignoring the vocals. like 04:06:297 (1,2) - is on drums, 04:06:634 (3) - is a vocal,04:07:140 (2) - the slider end of this is a vocal that should have been held out, 04:08:488 (2,3,4,5,6,7) - there's a long held out vocal here but it's all 1/2 circles etc etc. so there isnt any feeling of following one specific track in the song any more. to create diversity

Okorin wrote:

the 3/4 sliders in 04:01:409 - this part are kinda lol to hit accurately because all of them look so similar to what was done before lol looks fine for me

04:16:747 (2,3) - this is so random in this section's context you dont ever do bluetick starting 1/4 sliders so why now
but yeah especially with dnb songs like these the map would actually suffer from having less variety lol wanted to emphasize the bg sound
hi-mei
удачи ранкнуть карту с таким отношением, бро

панду жаль, правда.

нынешние реалии ранкинга таковы: либо ты слушаешь людей, либо ты грейвъярд маппер (идешь нахуй)

вам 3 (или даже больше) человека из стафа сказали одно и то же: вариации в ритме/паттернах тоже имеют адекватные границы, но вы же, блядь, такие опытные, что вам достаточно одного аргумента "это мой стиль, мне похуй, все субъективно" чтобы отречься от очевидных недостатков.

я был таким же, но эта игра и сам маппинг так устроен: ранк карты означает что общество считает эту самую карту достаточно хорошей, чтобы добавить ее в официальный клиент

вы не можете послать нахуй всех "хейтеров" и сказать, мол, это мой стиль. вы либо доказываете что вы правы, либо идете нахуй
Lama Poluna
error
hi-mei

Lama Poluna wrote:

В этом и есть суть маппинга, что не может быть каких то реальных стандартов. Каждый мапает так как он слышит музыку. Не могут все подстраиваться под один принцип или правило. Все разные, у всех разные стили, понимания и т.д. Общество может не принимать карту. Всегда есть люди которым нравится карта, и которым нет. У тебя ужасное мнение о маппинге.
опа, внезапно речь зашла обо мне

если нет конретных стандартов и каждый мапает как хочет, то по итогу мапперу нужно придерживаться РЦ и слушать людей опытнее его (бн, кват)

я пишу все это потому, что каждый раз новые мапперы наступают на одни и те же грабли - кто-то упорно не хочет ремапать то что ему говорят, кто-то наоборот слушает слишком много (нарпимер я)
но касательно этой карты, я считаю, проблема более чем очевидна, и ранкнуть карту мешает упорное нежелание маппера подчиниться
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply