In defense of the mapper, I'd like to rebut certain points for this mod and why this mod isn't good for the mapper. I personally don't want to defend ranking criteria, I just want to defend the map.
I understand that Dreamwalker has already read it and addressed it but I think it's food for thought for everyone else
I would take the motive for not ranking the map as to say that is it not rankable and not because it's a bad map
--
#1
Why is boosting SR by 0.2* a necessary point and why 60 ms, what is the mapper supposed to do with those numbers?
Your current suggestion, is honestly not bad, but it removes certain characteristics from the map itself:
1. 00:30:465 (30465|0,30465|1,30525|2,30525|3,30585|1,30585|0,30645|3,30645|2) - You removed the jumptrill element, in which I felt was an interesting touch to when I was playing it.
2. 00:30:585 (30585|1,30585|0,30705|1,30765|0,30825|1,30885|0,31005|0,31005|1) - The transitions, are alright, it at least has a decent structure and good splitting of what you're supposed to play in that particular time frame.
3. The new pattern feels uninspired and cookie-cutter
My interpretation of Dreamwalker's pattern: https://puu.sh/Av3fb/1d77e0f11c.bmp
My interpretation of Protastic's pattern: https://puu.sh/Av3iU/e079f414e1.bmp
Dreamwalker's presentation of the patterns are neat and tidy, every note serves a particular purpose of either supporting a chord, jumptrill, or representing a one hand trill. The newer pattern, though easier, has the idea of coercing players to just roll right and everything will be fine, that's simplistic and honestly just boring when compared to Dreamwalker's presentation.
--
#2
While I do understand where you're coming from, it's vague and a shot in a dark to try to push "how you interpret music" as an argument that a map isn't representing it correctly. I thought it was an interesting concept and I have no idea how is that an issue when playing.
"A possible solution to this would be to reduce the chord sizes in the second half of each measure in order to reduce the jump in note density as we do understand that keeping a similar density would make the map truly awkward with the long notes to play."
The jump in density is intentional, it fits the music, it is supposed to be challenging, and possibly awkward
--
#3
Dreamwalker, if you're going to preserve this as an interesting map, don't bother with ranking, they haven't figured out how to rank a dump. Making it "technically correct" will drive this map into mediocrity and it wouldn't even hold up against factory made maps. Even if you don't care about it too much anymore, don't make it worse
--
summary:
I'm going to sound rude but, Dreamwalker, rank something else, it will not be a good map if you just fixed everything.
--
footnote:
I personally have other issues with this map but I think i'll not comment on it until next time when i'm not busy
PS:
02:05:025 (125025|0,125025|1,125145|1,125145|0,125265|1,125325|0,125385|1,125505|0,125505|1,125625|1,125625|0) - this is too hard to play
E: grammar
I understand that Dreamwalker has already read it and addressed it but I think it's food for thought for everyone else
I would take the motive for not ranking the map as to say that is it not rankable and not because it's a bad map
--
#1
00:30:285 - As the song is 125 BPM, 1/8 streams and even jumpstreams can be considered fine for short periods of time due to the slow bpm, but we need to keep in mind that this is essentially a 250 BPM 1/4 dense handstream which leaves only 60 ms for players to read and properly hit notes. This alone boosts SR by 0.20* and is an unnecessary spike. A cleaner handstream with 1/4 jumps would be more closely centered to the general difficulty of the chart. A suggestion could be like so https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/11048440This is akin to blindly referencing, what's with 125 BPM and 1/8, what's wrong with the numbers and when is it considered fine, where are your references to the other points in the map?
Why is boosting SR by 0.2* a necessary point and why 60 ms, what is the mapper supposed to do with those numbers?
Your current suggestion, is honestly not bad, but it removes certain characteristics from the map itself:
1. 00:30:465 (30465|0,30465|1,30525|2,30525|3,30585|1,30585|0,30645|3,30645|2) - You removed the jumptrill element, in which I felt was an interesting touch to when I was playing it.
2. 00:30:585 (30585|1,30585|0,30705|1,30765|0,30825|1,30885|0,31005|0,31005|1) - The transitions, are alright, it at least has a decent structure and good splitting of what you're supposed to play in that particular time frame.
3. The new pattern feels uninspired and cookie-cutter
My interpretation of Dreamwalker's pattern: https://puu.sh/Av3fb/1d77e0f11c.bmp
My interpretation of Protastic's pattern: https://puu.sh/Av3iU/e079f414e1.bmp
Dreamwalker's presentation of the patterns are neat and tidy, every note serves a particular purpose of either supporting a chord, jumptrill, or representing a one hand trill. The newer pattern, though easier, has the idea of coercing players to just roll right and everything will be fine, that's simplistic and honestly just boring when compared to Dreamwalker's presentation.
--
#2
00:34:125 - Accents at consistent intervals for sounds that do not change in volume or emphasis. The first half of each phrase (from 00:36:045 - to 00:37:005 - ) have a much lower note density, whereas the second half of the measure (from 00:37:005 - to 00:37:965 - ) have a large jump in density despite the fact that the song has clearer instruments that are more isolated and lighter in sound. A possible solution to this would be to reduce the chord sizes in the second half of each measure in order to reduce the jump in note density as we do understand that keeping a similar density would make the map truly awkward with the long notes to play.I don't get how is interpreting a song like that inappropriate, it's obvious that the mapper wanted to emphasize on the jacks and not the LNs.
While I do understand where you're coming from, it's vague and a shot in a dark to try to push "how you interpret music" as an argument that a map isn't representing it correctly. I thought it was an interesting concept and I have no idea how is that an issue when playing.
"A possible solution to this would be to reduce the chord sizes in the second half of each measure in order to reduce the jump in note density as we do understand that keeping a similar density would make the map truly awkward with the long notes to play."
The jump in density is intentional, it fits the music, it is supposed to be challenging, and possibly awkward
--
#3
00:39:885 - 00:49:485 - 00:51:405 - 00:53:325 - and so on. Yes, there have been other maps where we have allowed 1/8 bursts for bass growls, but they were not as smooth or clean as the sounds here. There is such a negligible amount of vibration or change within each of these synths to warrant these bursts that they are notes for non-existent alterations in the music. Especially combined with long notes which already do an excellent job of representing the long sounds and the SVs which accentuate the more hectic nature of this ending section, these notes almost become redundant. A proposed solution would be to use long notes for the 1/8 bursts instead, and use stronger SV stutters to represent the very slight variations in sound.This is where it becomes clearly dumping and I'm not going to comment too much on it.
Dreamwalker, if you're going to preserve this as an interesting map, don't bother with ranking, they haven't figured out how to rank a dump. Making it "technically correct" will drive this map into mediocrity and it wouldn't even hold up against factory made maps. Even if you don't care about it too much anymore, don't make it worse
--
summary:
I'm going to sound rude but, Dreamwalker, rank something else, it will not be a good map if you just fixed everything.
--
footnote:
I personally have other issues with this map but I think i'll not comment on it until next time when i'm not busy
PS:
02:05:025 (125025|0,125025|1,125145|1,125145|0,125265|1,125325|0,125385|1,125505|0,125505|1,125625|1,125625|0) - this is too hard to play
E: grammar