forum

An - ExaVid [OsuMania]

posted
Total Posts
55
show more
Topic Starter
Abraxos

Tofu1222 wrote:

But this song and the vocal inside is quite impressive. Star for you first. Idk if i can give it a mod but lemme sincerely wish it rank soon owob
thanks for the stars dowo
Couil
sup, NM req from my q

Sorry for the late mod, was busier than I thought this week : (

at_the_threshold
00:02:984 (2984|0) - LN? Sounds like the other LN notes.
00:09:267 (9267|1) - Why is this LN shorter than the others? Sounds the same to me /shrug
00:10:994 (10994|2,10994|3) - This is pretty low in comparison to the other jumps, maybe make it a single LN to represent the sound better?
00:13:507 (13507|1,13507|0) - ^ (applies to the ones further into the song as well)
00:32:513 (32513|1,32670|1,32827|1,32984|1,33141|1) - Anchor maybe a bit too long. Would prolly change one of the jumps to make it <5.
00:37:539 (37539|2,37696|2,37853|2,38010|2,38167|2) - ^(guessing its intentional /shrug)
00:33:612 (33612|1) - Shouldn't this be on the same hand as the mini-jacks? Or are you mapping the guitar here mb.
00:38:638 (38638|2,38638|3) - Why double? Same sound as before.
00:44:764 (44764|2,45078|2) - Think these LNs would work better with the music if they were extended to 1/2 LNs instead.
00:49:790 (49790|2,50104|2) - ^
00:54:816 (54816|2,55130|2) - ^
00:51:675 - Add note for the "screeching piano sound". Think that's what you mapped here 00:51:361 (51361|2,51518|2)
00:53:403 (53403|2,53560|0) - What are these following? If it's the piano i think they need to be extended to 1/2 LNs.
00:58:429 (58429|2,58586|0) - ^
00:54:973 (54973|3) - Remove? Doesn't sound equally intense as the previous pattern, or maybe just make it a normal note.
01:00:314 (60314|2,60353|3,61570|1,61570|1,61609|0) - Think making these grace notes are a bit overkill, especially since you're not mapping each instance of the bass sound as grace notes.
01:06:596 (66596|2,66636|3) - ^
01:11:623 (71623|0,71662|1) - ^ (and prolly similar graces further ahead)
01:02:513 (62513|3) - Move to 2 as it's not the same sound a 01:02:356 (62356|3,62670|3)?
01:07:539 (67539|0) - ^ (but to 1)
01:05:026 (65026|3,65026|1) - Maybe make it a single, since it's less intense than the others.
01:14:973 (74973|2) - Ghost note?
01:17:670 - Add note?
01:20:052 (80052|1,80104|0) - Think these are wrongly snapped (might just be me that's hearing it wrong /shrug). Think 01:20:104 (80104|0) should be here; 01:20:130 and 01:20:052 (80052|1) should be here; 01:20:078.
01:22:146 (82146|1) - Can't hear anything for this, ghost note?
01:25:916 (85916|2) - Think the LN ends here; 01:26:073
01:27:748 - Add note for guitar?
01:30:628 - Double?
01:31:727 (91727|0,91884|0,92041|0,92198|0) - Anchor, mb change 01:31:884 (91884|1,91884|0) to [12] note instead?
01:41:780 (101780|0,101937|0,102094|0,102251|0) - ^ (Probably intentional though)
01:35:235 (95235|0) - Should this really be snapped like this? Don't know what it's following but it looks kinda weird.
01:40:261 (100261|3) - ^ (guessing it's intentional)
01:51:047 (111047|1) - Maybe make these kinds of sounds mini-LNs to emphasize them better, like you did here; 01:50:575 (110575|2)
02:30:667 (150667|2) - This feels a bit delayed, think it would work better if it was placed here; 02:30:628
02:44:921 (164921|2,164921|0) - Think this is a different sound from 02:44:607 (164607|2,164607|0). Maybe make it a [03] note?
02:50:418 (170418|1) - Shouldn't this be on column 3? Like you did previously for this sound?
02:54:424 (174424|1) - Ghost note.
02:59:450 (179450|1) - ^
03:01:963 (181963|1) - ^ (thought some of these had a vocal sound as the note hit, but think everyone of these are ghost notes, probably wrong though /shrug Won't comment on the rest of them)
02:59:842 (179842|0,179842|1) - Think this would work better as a [12]
03:12:251 (192251|0,192290|1) - Believe this is a 1/12 grace and not a 1/8 grace.
03:22:408 - Note for vocals? Maybe move the grace note to here?
03:24:659 (204659|2,204738|3) - Maybe make this a jack since the vocals are the same tone here?
03:26:335 (206335|0) - Think this is supposed to start at 03:26:308
03:31:361 (211361|3) - ^ 03:31:335
03:27:434 (207434|0) - Think this starts 1/12th of a note later.
03:32:198 (212198|3) - Shouldn't this be a LN like you did for this sounds previously in the song?
03:38:089 - Missed sound? (probably intentional but wanted to post just in case)
03:45:549 (225549|2) - Think it's supposed to be here; 03:45:589
03:51:047 (231047|3,231047|1) - Grace note?
04:06:832 (246832|2) - Ghost note?
04:16:884 (256884|1) - ^
04:24:581 (264581|2) - ^
04:33:141 - Mb add LNs for the piano here + a note here to emphasize the piano sound.
04:35:497 (275497|3,275654|3) - Same here + note at 04:35:654 (275654|3)
04:38:167 (278167|2,278324|3) - ^
05:20:732 (320732|0) - Think this starts here; 05:20:759
05:32:041 (332041|0) - ^ 05:32:067 (might have skipped over a few since i played this section at 1.0x speed)
05:34:554 (334554|0) - ^ 05:34:580 (Don't know if my game has a bad offset or something so won't point these out further ahead)

Didn't look at anything besides the patterning + played the map w/o HS so have no idea the HS are good or not /shrug

osu needs technical maps tbh. pls rank.

Also hope some of my suggestions are of help, GL ranking it!
Topic Starter
Abraxos

Couil wrote:

sup, NM req from my q

Sorry for the late mod, was busier than I thought this week : ( yo that's fine

at_the_threshold
00:02:984 (2984|0) - LN? Sounds like the other LN notes. doesn't really have that accentuated bass line piano

00:09:267 (9267|1) - Why is this LN shorter than the others? Sounds the same to me /shrug higher pitch than the pattern before

00:10:994 (10994|2,10994|3) - This is pretty low in comparison to the other jumps, maybe make it a single LN to represent the sound better? the LN thing is technically correct, but i didn't want to overuse it to the point of saturation, since it loses emphasis - i instead opted for a double
00:13:507 (13507|1,13507|0) - ^ (applies to the ones further into the song as well)

00:32:513 (32513|1,32670|1,32827|1,32984|1,33141|1) - Anchor maybe a bit too long. Would prolly change one of the jumps to make it <5.
00:37:539 (37539|2,37696|2,37853|2,38010|2,38167|2) - ^(guessing its intentional /shrug) shifted, not sure why they're the same doubles lmao

00:33:612 (33612|1) - Shouldn't this be on the same hand as the mini-jacks? Or are you mapping the guitar here mb. supposed to be doubled at the end, but general rule of thumb here is jacks on one jump on other

00:38:638 (38638|2,38638|3) - Why double? Same sound as before. was supposed to be doubled oops

00:44:764 (44764|2,45078|2) - Think these LNs would work better with the music if they were extended to 1/2 LNs instead.
00:49:790 (49790|2,50104|2) - ^
00:54:816 (54816|2,55130|2) - ^ damn this is cool

00:51:675 - Add note for the "screeching piano sound". Think that's what you mapped here 00:51:361 (51361|2,51518|2) edited

00:53:403 (53403|2,53560|0) - What are these following? If it's the piano i think they need to be extended to 1/2 LNs.
00:58:429 (58429|2,58586|0) - ^ there's this syncopated guitar strum that i did not want to touch on any further than just LNs

00:54:973 (54973|3) - Remove? Doesn't sound equally intense as the previous pattern, or maybe just make it a normal note. made them staccato LNs

01:00:314 (60314|2,60353|3,61570|1,61570|1,61609|0) - Think making these grace notes are a bit overkill, especially since you're not mapping each instance of the bass sound as grace notes.
01:06:596 (66596|2,66636|3) - ^
01:11:623 (71623|0,71662|1) - ^ (and prolly similar graces further ahead) it's supposed to be a flam for the beeop sound, not the bassline

01:02:513 (62513|3) - Move to 2 as it's not the same sound a 01:02:356 (62356|3,62670|3)?
01:07:539 (67539|0) - ^ (but to 1) if i do so emphasis on the synth pitches is lost imo (though this might trigger those PR enthusiasts)

01:05:026 (65026|3,65026|1) - Maybe make it a single, since it's less intense than the others. done

01:14:973 (74973|2) - Ghost note? very light violin on 1/6, i hid the 1/6 with the LNs

01:17:670 - Add note? would be out of place in this scenario

01:20:052 (80052|1,80104|0) - Think these are wrongly snapped (might just be me that's hearing it wrong /shrug). Think 01:20:104 (80104|0) should be here; 01:20:130 and 01:20:052 (80052|1) should be here; 01:20:078. think for the sake of playability i'll stick to 1/6 approx. for now

01:22:146 (82146|1) - Can't hear anything for this, ghost note? background piano which is pretty much the same as the beginning '>_'

01:25:916 (85916|2) - Think the LN ends here; 01:26:073 done

01:27:748 - Add note for guitar? added and re-arranged to make them more obvious

01:30:628 - Double? for beats like this i thought the second bass was a bit soften than the normal one, so i kept it as a single instead

01:31:727 (91727|0,91884|0,92041|0,92198|0) - Anchor, mb change 01:31:884 (91884|1,91884|0) to [12] note instead?
01:41:780 (101780|0,101937|0,102094|0,102251|0) - ^ (Probably intentional though) edited this one, was pretty left biased woops

01:35:235 (95235|0) - Should this really be snapped like this? Don't know what it's following but it looks kinda weird.
01:40:261 (100261|3) - ^ (guessing it's intentional) i'm kinda playing with the RC at this point, i personally believe there's a 1/6 synth overlayed by a 1/4 one at this point, so i kinda took care of both with this LN

01:51:047 (111047|1) - Maybe make these kinds of sounds mini-LNs to emphasize them better, like you did here; 01:50:575 (110575|2) had the LN only be at the start gives each section subtly more distinction between each other

02:30:667 (150667|2) - This feels a bit delayed, think it would work better if it was placed here; 02:30:628 i compromised a little at ultimately snapped it to 1/12 ok no more changes

02:44:921 (164921|2,164921|0) - Think this is a different sound from 02:44:607 (164607|2,164607|0). Maybe make it a [03] note? the difference is a bit too subtle for me

02:50:418 (170418|1) - Shouldn't this be on column 3? Like you did previously for this sound? edited

02:54:424 (174424|1) - Ghost note.
02:59:450 (179450|1) - ^
03:01:963 (181963|1) - ^ (thought some of these had a vocal sound as the note hit, but think everyone of these are ghost notes, probably wrong though /shrug Won't comment on the rest of them) the ones without the vocals are gone

02:59:842 (179842|0,179842|1) - Think this would work better as a [12] all parts edited seems cool

03:12:251 (192251|0,192290|1) - Believe this is a 1/12 grace and not a 1/8 grace. for the beep sound thing ye

03:22:408 - Note for vocals? Maybe move the grace note to here? might seem out of place in play actually, there isn't a strong syllable being pronounced there

03:24:659 (204659|2,204738|3) - Maybe make this a jack since the vocals are the same tone here? jack would be out of place sadly, i reserved that for the first part of the song

03:26:335 (206335|0) - Think this is supposed to start at 03:26:308
03:31:361 (211361|3) - ^ 03:31:335 sound peaks on 1/6

03:27:434 (207434|0) - Think this starts 1/12th of a note later. FUCK YOU AN

03:32:198 (212198|3) - Shouldn't this be a LN like you did for this sounds previously in the song? missed a spot

03:38:089 - Missed sound? (probably intentional but wanted to post just in case) not intentional whop

03:45:549 (225549|2) - Think it's supposed to be here; 03:45:589 the fuck an

03:51:047 (231047|3,231047|1) - Grace note? doesn't have a glissando

04:06:832 (246832|2) - Ghost note?
04:16:884 (256884|1) - ^ all exist to me, though a bit muffled
04:24:581 (264581|2) - ^ edited this one though

04:33:141 - Mb add LNs for the piano here + a note here to emphasize the piano sound.
04:35:497 (275497|3,275654|3) - Same here + note at 04:35:654 (275654|3)
04:38:167 (278167|2,278324|3) - ^ may consider, but i think it might overload the section a bit

05:20:732 (320732|0) - Think this starts here; 05:20:759 nice one an now i can't have LNs with the same length

05:32:041 (332041|0) - ^ 05:32:067 (might have skipped over a few since i played this section at 1.0x speed)
05:34:554 (334554|0) - ^ 05:34:580 (Don't know if my game has a bad offset or something so won't point these out further ahead) i think the LNs work fine in compensating for the somewhat late beat, but i'll keep a lookout for this part

Didn't look at anything besides the patterning + played the map w/o HS so have no idea the HS are good or not /shrug they're probably bad i hate hitsounds so much

osu needs technical maps tbh. pls rank. trying : )))

Also hope some of my suggestions are of help, GL ranking it! mod was useful, thank you
updated hope no HS was affected (if anything i can just copy paste the diff again)

edit: damn thanks for the 3 stars too
Alsty-
hello , sorry for the delay , my lazyness is just to stronkk :'

1|2|3|4
aT_tHe_ThResHoLd
  1. 00:02:984 (2984|0) - 00:08:010 (8010|0) - its mini LN i guess? its kinda strong for me
  2. 00:29:685 (29685|3) - move to 2
  3. 00:31:256 - i'm just not like this for personal reason tho , its better to make it mini LN. sorry for my selfishness , you can keep it , its reasonable too =3=
  4. 00:34:162 - add on col 2?
  5. 00:39:188 - ^ 3
  6. 01:01:570 - double?
  7. 01:06:596 - same , i dont think you should make it same like 01:00:314 - here.
  8. 03:58:291 (238291|2) - make this mini LN and move to 03:58:429 (238429|2) - to 2
  9. 05:20:261 (320261|0,320759|0,321204|0) - any reason why the length is different?

Yes, the hardest map I've ever mod so far, you put so much effort for those snapping, and i cant even give pattern suggestions because i see all the notes you put is intended to be there. Can't wait to see this ranked! Good luck!
Topic Starter
Abraxos

Alsty- wrote:

hello , sorry for the delay , my lazyness is just to stronkk :' that's fine so as long as you got back

1|2|3|4
aT_tHe_ThResHoLd
  1. 00:02:984 (2984|0) - 00:08:010 (8010|0) - its mini LN i guess? its kinda strong for me placed 1/8 ln
  2. 00:29:685 (29685|3) - move to 2 pattern is supposed to progress here so i'm keeping the similarity
  3. 00:31:256 - i'm just not like this for personal reason tho , its better to make it mini LN. sorry for my selfishness , you can keep it , its reasonable too =3= oh no, it's fine; i'd rather maintain this because otherwise there'd be no doing the flam of the synth justice really
  4. 00:34:162 - add on col 2?
  5. 00:39:188 - ^ 3 done both
  6. 01:01:570 - double? intentional, double would make the layering functionally a triple
  7. 01:06:596 - same , i dont think you should make it same like 01:00:314 - here. second case points to a double tho, also see above
  8. 03:58:291 (238291|2) - make this mini LN and move to 03:58:429 (238429|2) - to 2 it's meant to trip people up sorry
  9. 05:20:261 (320261|0,320759|0,321204|0) - any reason why the length is different? impossible to make them the same you can try but i changed the snaps again tho so they're the same now

Yes, the hardest map I've ever mod so far, you put so much effort for those snapping, and i cant even give pattern suggestions because i see all the notes you put is intended to be there. Can't wait to see this ranked! Good luck! thanks for the mod dude, also thanks for the 3 starss
updated
Litharrale
dibs bubble
Hydria

Litharrale wrote:

dibs bubble
That's where you're wrong kiddo. 8-)

Limitation.
00:02:984 (2984|0) - I feel like if this (and others) is a short LN than 00:02:827 (2827|2) - that should follow suit due to coming from the same instrument in the same measure

00:10:052 - onwards - interesting decision to ignore the piano during this section, intentional? i feel like piano notes throughout (00:11:151 - 00:12:879 - 00:13:664 - etc) wouldn't hurt the map

00:20:994 - i want to say the ethereal vocal line is here rather than 00:20:968 - (same here 00:26:020 - )

00:21:675 (21675|0,21910|2) - maybe make these wailing noises stand out a bit more with a 1/4 LN? (same 00:26:701 (26701|3,26937|1) - )

move 00:35:340 (35340|0,35340|2) - to [24] and move 00:35:418 (35418|1) - to 1 for PR

00:42:041 - wailing sounds like it starts here

00:53:403 (53403|2) - there's two guitar sounds here represented by 1 LN (same 00:58:429 (58429|2) - )

00:54:188 (54188|0,54345|2,54502|1,54502|0) - this sounds like it should be all 1/4 notes

01:27:068 (87068|3) - if that's following what i think it is then it's on the 1/8 earlier

01:27:801 (87801|1) - 1/6 later

01:51:047 (111047|1) - 01:51:518 (111518|3) - 01:51:989 (111989|0) - etc. - couldn't these all be small LNs to reflect the main melody playing in this slow section
also, MUH PR

02:30:785 - 02:40:837 -
1. I can barely make out what these notes are actually following in the music
2. Untouched vocals that could be used (but might be hard idk how unsnapped they are)
3. 02:32:120 - 02:32:454 - 02:32:787 - 02:33:121 - sounds here that are ignored

02:42:643 (162643|1,162643|0) - need justification for this double

05:31:570 - if these LNs are focusing on the really quiet instrument in the back then some more should exist at 05:32:905 - 05:33:298 - 05:33:769 - 05:34:083 - 05:38:324 - 05:38:638 - 05:38:795 - etc. unless these were purposefully ignored

05:46:492 (346492|1,346570|0,346649|2,346649|3,346727|1) - should prob also be replicated in 05:46:178 - as well

06:01:884 - i would've mapped more of the outro but your choice

overall: interesting instrument selection throughout the map, definitely with the solo instrument focus in some of the slow sections, alongside making less noticable instruments stand out with LNs. Not a design I would go with myself, but it's good to see it being used anyhow, i just think it needs refining in a few places (letting more notable sounds be noticed throughout the map over the quietness).
Topic Starter
Abraxos

Hydria wrote:

Litharrale wrote:

dibs bubble
That's where you're wrong kiddo. 8-) 8 - )

Limitation.
00:02:984 (2984|0) - I feel like if this (and others) is a short LN than 00:02:827 (2827|2) - that should follow suit due to coming from the same instrument in the same measure i had my qualms about placing an LN there in general actually, removed it entirely because i didn't want to overdo it since i already have 00:09:267 (9267|1) - this thing

00:10:052 - onwards - interesting decision to ignore the piano during this section, intentional? i feel like piano notes throughout (00:11:151 - 00:12:879 - 00:13:664 - etc) wouldn't hurt the map it certainly wouldn't, but i didn't quite want to make the map a crockpot of everything in general; i get what you mean in any case, but i feel it's better if i focused on the percussion for the more percussion-oriented parts, and the piano/synth for the less percussion-oriented parts (at the beginning anyway)

00:20:994 - i want to say the ethereal vocal line is here rather than 00:20:968 - (same here 00:26:020 - ) i want to believe otherwise, will check with others

00:21:675 (21675|0,21910|2) - maybe make these wailing noises stand out a bit more with a 1/4 LN? (same 00:26:701 (26701|3,26937|1) - ) get what you mean, but again i didn't really want to oversaturate the part - if you notice there's a bit of progression from this part to 00:31:256 - for example too, and having those LNs would break the flow imo

move 00:35:340 (35340|0,35340|2) - to [24] and move 00:35:418 (35418|1) - to 1 for PR done

00:42:041 - wailing sounds like it starts here an has an issue

00:53:403 (53403|2) - there's two guitar sounds here represented by 1 LN (same 00:58:429 (58429|2) - ) didn't want to touch on the guitar too much, changed to 1 LN tho

00:54:188 (54188|0,54345|2,54502|1,54502|0) - this sounds like it should be all 1/4 notes did something

01:27:068 (87068|3) - if that's following what i think it is then it's on the 1/8 earlier ye

01:27:801 (87801|1) - 1/6 later this note's for the 1/4 violin

01:51:047 (111047|1) - 01:51:518 (111518|3) - 01:51:989 (111989|0) - etc. - couldn't these all be small LNs to reflect the main melody playing in this slow section only placed an LN at the start to kinda chop up the sections into pieces
also, MUH PR : ) pr is overrated tbh

02:30:785 - 02:40:837 -
1. I can barely make out what these notes are actually following in the music that's the cool thing about this part imo, i only followed the minute shifts in the synths here because i wanted the player to just hear the vocals for what they are first, 02:30:785 (150785|3,150785|0,150785|1,150785|2) - i think the quad is enough to shock them into listening the song
2. Untouched vocals that could be used (but might be hard idk how unsnapped they are) aaaa
3. 02:32:120 - 02:32:454 - 02:32:787 - 02:33:121 - sounds here that are ignored same deal as above, would break the immersion

02:42:643 (162643|1,162643|0) - need justification for this double all removed

05:31:570 - if these LNs are focusing on the really quiet instrument in the back then some more should exist at 05:32:905 - 05:33:298 - 05:33:769 - 05:34:083 - 05:38:324 - 05:38:638 - 05:38:795 - etc. unless these were purposefully ignored LNs were for the double bass (or some really deep sounding string instrument)

05:46:492 (346492|1,346570|0,346649|2,346649|3,346727|1) - should prob also be replicated in 05:46:178 - as well they are, feel free to check closer

06:01:884 - i would've mapped more of the outro but your choice beep boop

overall: interesting instrument selection throughout the map, definitely with the solo instrument focus in some of the slow sections, alongside making less noticable instruments stand out with LNs. Not a design I would go with myself, but it's good to see it being used anyhow, i just think it needs refining in a few places (letting more notable sounds be noticed throughout the map over the quietness). i went into the chart wanting to make it at least somewhat able to become more systematic as the song progresses, so i had to prioritize some instruments over others - it is nice to see that most of it actually works
thanks for the mod dude

updatos
riunosk
sup abasos
i should really start not being lazy 123412341234123412431234123412341234

what programming sorcery code is this
00:05:183 (5183|3) - sounds slightly lower pitched than 00:04:869 (4869|3) -
00:29:057 (29057|2,29214|2,29371|2,29528|2) - intendedede?
00:38:324 - col 1 seems rather lonely
01:31:727 (91727|0,91884|0,92041|0,92198|0) - intendededededededed? actually wait it follows something
03:13:507 - you mapped the piano at the beginning, why not do it here?
(unrelated) 04:20:732 - my ears
04:28:193 (268193|3,268272|0,268272|2,268350|1,268429|0,268429|3) - im not sure how to say this but these hl'd notes feel somewhat out of place since the others like 04:31:806 (271806|2,271884|0,271963|2,272041|1,272041|0) - aren't as "flowy"
04:30:706 (270706|0,270785|3,270785|1,270863|2,270942|3,270942|0) - ^
(unrelated) 04:41:308 - this reminds me of some artcore track that i like........ARForest?
05:00:628 (300628|1) - wrongly snapped, should be on the next 1/8 line
05:01:099 (301099|2) - ^
06:02:041 (362041|2) - im not sure why you put a note here, was it to follow the "piano-synth" sound? in that case you should've continued mapping
intrestnsignesting chartt
dam this sexy stuf
star for u cos good maaaaaap
Topic Starter
Abraxos

riunosk wrote:

sup abasos
i should really start not being lazy 123412341234123412431234123412341234 hello

what programming sorcery code is this
00:05:183 (5183|3) - sounds slightly lower pitched than 00:04:869 (4869|3) - changed it

00:29:057 (29057|2,29214|2,29371|2,29528|2) - intendedede? ye

00:38:324 - col 1 seems rather lonely it's partially due to the patterning

01:31:727 (91727|0,91884|0,92041|0,92198|0) - intendededededededed? actually wait it follows something also ye

03:13:507 - you mapped the piano at the beginning, why not do it here? progression of patterning

(unrelated) 04:20:732 - my ears same

04:28:193 (268193|3,268272|0,268272|2,268350|1,268429|0,268429|3) - im not sure how to say this but these hl'd notes feel somewhat out of place since the others like 04:31:806 (271806|2,271884|0,271963|2,272041|1,272041|0) - aren't as "flowy" if you noticed the trills are actually around 04:27:958 (267958|1,268036|3,268115|1,268193|3,268272|0,268350|1,268429|0,268507|1) -
04:30:706 (270706|0,270785|3,270785|1,270863|2,270942|3,270942|0) - ^ same deal

(unrelated) 04:41:308 - this reminds me of some artcore track that i like........ARForest? no please

05:00:628 (300628|1) - wrongly snapped, should be on the next 1/8 line
05:01:099 (301099|2) - ^ edited

06:02:041 (362041|2) - im not sure why you put a note here, was it to follow the "piano-synth" sound? in that case you should've continued mapping it's funny cause this is meant as a form of progression from the first 00:00:000 (0|0,157|3) - two notes - since the pitches here are a bit syncopated i threw them into the middle two columns but still kept the pitch ascension thing (i.e. left to right)
intrestnsignesting chartt
dam this sexy stuf
star for u cos good maaaaaap thx for the mod and star
updated
Raveille
arforest is god tho wtffff

also heres more star, get it ranked
riunosk

Raveille wrote:

arforest is god tho wtffff
yes
Rivals_7
sup'
1234

https://puu.sh/yjmaq/b0a8e0be63.wav soft hitwhistle got some long silence so i kinda cut it

00:09:267 (9267|1) - why is this shorter than the others? looking at your reply at raveille, doesnt seem to relate. understandable if its was following primary piano (it is higher pitch) but this is a secondary piano that has the same pitch as - 00:08:795 (8795|1) -

00:29:999 (29999|3) - extend? sounds still continuing

01:07:382 - would suggest add a note (and F) on the next 2 blue line to cover some metal-crash-like noises idk

probably other places as well

01:13:743 (73743|3) - delete i guess. not so strong

01:27:054 (87054|3) - shouldnt be this being a some kind of grace? refer - 01:27:329 (87329|0,87356|3) -

01:35:235 (95235|0) - edgy LN
seriously tho its sounds ambiguous. what i heard clear is from - 01:35:183 (95183|2) - to the - 01:35:340 (95340|2) -

01:40:261 (100261|3) - same (?)

03:32:277 - might be cool to accenting wubs

Applicable to anywhere similar

04:20:732 (260732|2,260811|2,260890|3,260968|3,261047|1,261125|1,261204|0,261282|0) - I would actually going for 33|11|44|22 jacks for some balance thing. but maybe up to you

04:21:989 (261989|2,262146|2,262303|2) - 04:22:460 (262460|3,262617|3,262774|3) - 04:23:010 (263010|3,263167|3,263324|3) - not sure if its intended but other section spreads it more balanced

05:20:261 (320261|0) - 05:21:204 (321204|0) - 1/16 later

HS is cool so far and besides the OD and HP which is kinda lol i psatisfied with most of it so i think i'll go with this
Topic Starter
Abraxos

Rivals_7 wrote:

sup' hello
1234

https://puu.sh/yjmaq/b0a8e0be63.wav soft hitwhistle got some long silence so i kinda cut it replaced

00:09:267 (9267|1) - why is this shorter than the others? looking at your reply at raveille, doesnt seem to relate. understandable if its was following primary piano (it is higher pitch) but this is a secondary piano that has the same pitch as - 00:08:795 (8795|1) - the thing about this part is that the piano actually syncopates further than it did over at 00:04:083 (4083|3,4240|1) - , so to demonstrate that i just made the ln shorter

00:29:999 (29999|3) - extend? sounds still continuing actually think it cuts off nicely at the blue tick

01:07:382 - would suggest add a note (and F) on the next 2 blue line to cover some metal-crash-like noises idk

probably other places as well i guess i can see where you're coming from but if i layered those it detracts from the stack i made (which in this case is following the synth pitchs in the music

01:13:743 (73743|3) - delete i guess. not so strong it's about the same thing as 01:12:486 - , just slightly less audible; i could hear it without the hs though so i'll keep this for now

01:27:054 (87054|3) - shouldnt be this being a some kind of grace? refer - 01:27:329 (87329|0,87356|3) - edited part for clarity

01:35:235 (95235|0) - edgy LN
seriously tho its sounds ambiguous. what i heard clear is from - 01:35:183 (95183|2) - to the - 01:35:340 (95340|2) - i would like to argue that there exists a 1/6 here (since there's seemingly 6 beats syncopated with the 4 here) so i placed the LN for compensation; i'll ask around for more opinions dw

01:40:261 (100261|3) - same (?) ^^

03:32:277 - might be cool to accenting wubs

Applicable to anywhere similar might be a bit harsh :blobsweats:, also it kinda breaks the pewpew grace 01:40:261 (100261|3) - too

04:20:732 (260732|2,260811|2,260890|3,260968|3,261047|1,261125|1,261204|0,261282|0) - I would actually going for 33|11|44|22 jacks for some balance thing. but maybe up to you they're in the same audio channels if u used earpieces soooo

04:21:989 (261989|2,262146|2,262303|2) - 04:22:460 (262460|3,262617|3,262774|3) - 04:23:010 (263010|3,263167|3,263324|3) - not sure if its intended but other section spreads it more balanced 2 things:

1) the snares/hihats went in pairs
04:22:146 (262146|2,262225|0,262303|1,262303|2) - 04:22:460 (262460|3,262539|1,262617|2,262617|3) - like so, i made them the same hand because i felt that the gradation would be more obvious that way

2) the stacks sets a precedence for the next section
since the next section does those funky stack things it'd be nice to have some sort of primer


05:20:261 (320261|0) - 05:21:204 (321204|0) - 1/16 later done

HS is cool so far and besides the OD and HP which is kinda lol i psatisfied with most of it so i think i'll go with this
i made the OD and HP fucking gay because
1) this isn't the SR it looks like it is
2) no mash passes
3) no immediate 100% SS's from those gay acc people
updatos, redl for HS update
Topic Starter
Abraxos
edit: below
Topic Starter
Abraxos
post-post update: everything is fixed now, feel free to start the modding again; hitsounds might be a bit borked but it's nothing too substantial to be worried about
Rivals_7
yea cool

03:09:424 (189424|3) - ghost?

05:22:774 (322774|1,322853|2) - I guess this can be swapped to follow some kind of particular piano(?) to act something similar with - 05:24:816 (324816|0,324973|0,325130|0,325287|0) - 05:26:230 (326230|3,326387|3,326544|3,326701|3) - 05:29:842 (329842|0,329999|0,330157|0,330314|0) -

this is actually nitpick, idk what to mod lmao
pm/dm me if u still want to push. maybe...
Topic Starter
Abraxos

Rivals_7 wrote:

yea cool

03:09:424 (189424|3) - ghost? changed

05:22:774 (322774|1,322853|2) - I guess this can be swapped to follow some kind of particular piano(?) to act something similar with - 05:24:816 (324816|0,324973|0,325130|0,325287|0) - 05:26:230 (326230|3,326387|3,326544|3,326701|3) - 05:29:842 (329842|0,329999|0,330157|0,330314|0) - not quite the main piano in the music, so

this is actually nitpick, idk what to mod lmao
pm/dm me if u still want to push. maybe... i can leave the bubbling to you
updated
Rivals_7
uwu

for next BN: carefully check the snapping. in case i messed up :d
Raveille
IJo mGMo mO GMogmo Mo fuKCINg hyPE ABVRAXOS GO OG OGOGO OG OG
Litharrale

Rivals_7 wrote:

for next BN: carefully check the snapping. in case i messed up :d
BLOBSWEATING INCREASES

i dibs this map btw, all other bns can take a proverbial hike
Topic Starter
Abraxos
snapping for 01:40:209 -
for those concerned with a particular snap at 01:40:209 -

[11:18 AM] _A: for exavid at 01:35:183 - , is there 6 underlying beats too
[11:18 AM] _A: over the obvious 4 beats
[11:18 AM] Erin: give me a moment, I need to shower first
[11:37 AM] Erin: alright, 1:35
[11:37 AM] _A: ow o
[11:41 AM] Erin: so SM and osu reads mp3s differently so take this with a +83ms offset
[11:42 AM] _A: alright
[11:42 AM] Erin: 1:35.423 and the next 3 1/2s have bass kicks
[11:42 AM] _A: so 4 beats right there
[11:42 AM] Erin: 1:35.266 does not
[11:42 AM] Erin: there is a sound on 1:35.266 but you're not capturing it to begin with
[11:42 AM] Erin: or at least not with doubles
[11:43 AM] _A: mhm
[11:44 AM] _A: from the interval 1:35:183 to 1:35:497 are there too 6 beats in total (osu timing)
[11:44 AM] Erin: what do you mean by beats
[11:44 AM] Erin: bass kicks?
[11:44 AM] _A: synths
[11:45 AM] _A: cause i keep hearing "1 2 3" for the first measure in 1:35:183 to 1:35:497 (there's two measures)
[11:45 AM] _A: extrapolating gives 6
[11:47 AM] _A: or maybe i'm going crazy
[11:47 AM] Erin: i have no idea what you're talking about
[11:48 AM] _A: i hear 3 very light synth beats in the first bracket https://imgur-archive.ppy.sh/discord/200566180233084928-378752711992279041-unknown.png
[11:48 AM] _A: other than the 2 more prominent ones
[11:49 AM] Erin: there's so many synth melodies now that I think about it
[11:49 AM] _A: yeah which is why i made it such that i compensate with the LN
[11:49 AM] _A: just need confirmation
[11:49 AM] Erin: i can't hear what the LN is going to
[11:49 AM] _A: it's compensatory
[11:49 AM] Erin: what are you compensating for exactly though
[11:50 AM] _A: the synth melody i described above
[11:50 AM] Erin: god, it's so soft
[11:50 AM] _A: ya..
[11:50 AM] Erin: but no the second iteration doesn't exist
[11:50 AM] _A: really?
[11:50 AM] Erin: ye
[11:50 AM] _A: fair enough
[11:51 AM] Erin: if it does exist it's at such a low key it's not worth accounting for

TL;DR:

the first bracket has the light synth, the second doesn't - hence the grace at 01:40:209 - to compensate ever so slightly
Litharrale
Yo

I think this map is trying to emulate something that it's not and falls hard because of it. At first glance it seemed interesting, something like impulsive state but after having a closer look, this map feels like it's just being random for randoms sake. The only thing differentiating this from a brand new mapper's map is that it has "Abraxos" attached to it.

Examples of said "random for randoms sake":

First 10 seconds

In the intro you establish this pattern of 1/4 LNs and singles. The 1/4 LNs appear to be attached to chords with notes in the bass clef, except this is only true some of the times. There are notes like this 00:02:984 (2984|0) - which is clearly has a bass sound attached to it.

Looking at a screenshot like this

You'd think that the notes in col 4 would have some very specific and strong purpose. This section is practically 3+1 and that's ok when it makes sense but...

It doesn't.

The one highlighted in blue isn't special and sounds just like the rest. But the note after it is a strong high note so maybe the theme is that col 4 is meant to launch you into the next bar? No because there are notes like this 00:04:083 (4083|3) -



which are completely different to the first example.

00:09:267 (9267|1) - I can't even begin to understand why this is 1/6

So why is this section 3+1 and ignoring things like PR (only when it's convenient see bass notes like 00:08:010 (8010|0))? It just seems random and almost like an autoconvert disguised as "too deep for you technical mapping"

Looking past the intro now (each issue gets its own example, the issues aren't isolated to the examples)

00:21:047 (21047|2,21073|0) - "arpeggioing" a snare like this is weird. A snare drum is hit once so having multiple notes at different times for the same sound doesn't really make sense. It also breaks the rule of "each note must be mapped to a distinct sound"

00:20:837 (20837|1) - While we're on weird 1/6 notes, this should also be on the blue tick, I understand there is a sound there but there it is definitely not 1/6

Changing the last two points to what they should be turns the pattern into my thoughts on the map https://imgur-archive.ppy.sh/WaOckt3.png

00:41:099 (41099|3) - this map is also a ghosttown (ha)

00:40:209 (40209|0) - The transition between the sounds you are mapping starting from this bar is weird and janky because it just kind of randomly changes without a clear divison in the music or patterning. There are notes here which are mapped to both, some that are mapped to one and some that are mapped to the other. It plays out so the only way to make sense of it is in the editor

00:58:429 (58429|1,58586|2,58743|3) - These LN overlaps are overemphasized seemingly for the sake of it. Making them longer would more accuratley cover the sound and also make it not crazy hard to SS on
This isn't even mentioning how it seems practically copy pasted from here 00:53:403 (53403|1) -

These are only examples from the first minute but they carry on throughout the map

This maps flow from one sound to another through patterning is janky, the LN lengths are weird and inconsistent and there are ghost notes left and right. None of these seem to be mistakes but rather done to make the map edgy and random so it stands out.



Also, HP of 9.6 is practically unacceptable for a 3.6* map. Find better ways to stop people mashing


Since I can almost predict your response to this, I might as well remind you that you can overwrite my pop but getting a different BN to bubble this

Good luck
Topic Starter
Abraxos

Litharrale wrote:

Since I can almost predict your response to this, I might as well remind you that you can overwrite my pop but getting a different BN to bubble this
then i don't understand your intentions behind modding this chart - if you can "almost predict" what i was going to respond then what's the point

Litharrale wrote:

I think this map is trying to emulate something that it's not and falls hard because of it. At first glance it seemed interesting, something like impulsive state but after having a closer look, this map feels like it's just being random for randoms sake. The only thing differentiating this from a brand new mapper's map is that it has "Abraxos" attached to it.
shrug
"brand new mapper" is a massive stretch, and i think you're greatly exaggerating the number and severity of inconsistencies present in a chart but what do i know right

oh and i guess my name now is a viable justification for quality yay

Litharrale wrote:

First 10 seconds

In the intro you establish this pattern of 1/4 LNs and singles. The 1/4 LNs appear to be attached to chords with notes in the bass clef, except this is only true some of the times. There are notes like this 00:02:984 (2984|0) - which is clearly has a bass sound attached to it.

Looking at a screenshot like this

You'd think that the notes in col 4 would have some very specific and strong purpose. This section is practically 3+1 and that's ok when it makes sense but...

It doesn't.

The one highlighted in blue isn't special and sounds just like the rest. But the note after it is a strong high note so maybe the theme is that col 4 is meant to launch you into the next bar? No because there are notes like this 00:04:083 (4083|3) -

which are completely different to the first example.
it's a pity that you missed the fact the LNs themselves follow a secondary synth that rises and falls in pitch - they correspond to each of the individual columns and what do you know they're PR'd

00:02:984 - this just DOES NOT have the bass clef or whatever you call it - it doesn't appear in the same audio channel as with the other LNs too

i guess it felt good for you to go "it doesn't" in that line - ah ha you got me good there yes
the thing is, you kinda missed your mark on how i PRd the part here
00:01:413 (1413|1,1570|0) - pitch goes down so therefore left
00:01:884 (1884|0,2041|1) - pitch goes up therefore right
00:02:356 (2356|0) - lower than the main synth at 00:02:198 - so therefore left
00:01:256 (1256|2,1727|2,2198|2) - made to stay in the same column because secondary bass synth

tl;dr - main PR for bass synth, cannot really PR for main synth because it'll clash and it's not what i want

Litharrale wrote:

00:09:267 (9267|1) - I can't even begin to understand why this is 1/6
00:04:240 (4240|1) doesn't sound the same as 00:09:267 (9267|1) and hence they're not mapped the same
if you think that the 1/6 does not correspond well enough to the song, that's just cause musical relevance to that degree has never been considered in the chart - it's not a wrong method of charting any more so than using certain chords for certain sounds is

Litharrale wrote:

So why is this section 3+1 and ignoring things like PR (only when it's convenient see bass notes like 00:08:010 (8010|0))? It just seems random and almost like an autoconvert disguised as "too deep for you technical mapping"
so you're a BN and you're supposed to moderate and decide the quality of beatmaps holistically - and somehow you think that because of some simple misunderstanding of PR and patterning you dare have the basis to claim that whatever i've done is like an autoconvert disguised as "too deep for you technical mapping"? piss off will you

Litharrale wrote:

00:21:047 (21047|2,21073|0) - "arpeggioing" a snare like this is weird. A snare drum is hit once so having multiple notes at different times for the same sound doesn't really make sense. It also breaks the rule of "each note must be mapped to a distinct sound"
another misunderstanding
must've felt good to utilize the "oh ho it breaks this and this rule" catch, but then again

00:20:732 (20732|1,20837|1,20968|0,21073|0) - this is what you're supposed to be looking at - these 1/3s go to the vocals, which in essence may be a bit light on the second iteration but the staggering of them is what i wanted to represent.

Litharrale wrote:

00:20:837 (20837|1) - While we're on weird 1/6 notes, this should also be on the blue tick, I understand there is a sound there but there it is definitely not 1/6
see above

Litharrale wrote:

Changing the last two points to what they should be turns the pattern into my thoughts on the map https://imgur-archive.ppy.sh/WaOckt3.png
3 things:
1) the gap between the first and second note is far larger than a 1/4 gap
2) the gap between the second note and the [34] chord is extremely small, which makes it impossible to hit the [34] chord if you leave a 1/4 gap without bleeding a super late 200 or late 100
3) hitting the 31 gallop as a chord is incredibly inefficient for timing

Litharrale wrote:

00:41:099 (41099|3) - this map is also a ghosttown (ha)
very light vocal stagger (again), it's the complement of 00:40:837 (40837|1,40955|1) - and i included it because i deliberately wanted the first entrance part of this section to be a little awkward since the music there feels like a rush of sounds to me and i wanted to keep the players on their toes

i've already established beforehand that all vocals will have some form of second iteration, and the idea is that this goes hand-in-hand with the last point

Litharrale wrote:

00:40:209 (40209|0) - The transition between the sounds you are mapping starting from this bar is weird and janky because it just kind of randomly changes without a clear divison in the music or patterning. There are notes here which are mapped to both, some that are mapped to one and some that are mapped to the other. It plays out so the only way to make sense of it is in the editor
"There are notes here which are mapped to both, some that are mapped to one and some that are mapped to the other" can you at least help me out here and tell me what you mean exactly?

Litharrale wrote:

00:58:429 (58429|1,58586|2,58743|3) - These LN overlaps are overemphasized seemingly for the sake of it. Making them longer would more accurately cover the sound and also make it not crazy hard to SS on
so instead of assuming that it was a mistake on my part, you went ahead with your narrative and claimed that this is not only overemphasised, but emphasised arbitrarily. i'm finding it hard to not take offense just solely on what you've said here lith, please help me out

Litharrale wrote:

This isn't even mentioning how it seems practically copy pasted from here 00:53:403 (53403|1) -
you chastise me for supposedly not PRing a previous section (which I did), but you're chastising me here for PRing an integral part of the song?

as for why this section in particular, is copy-pasted, a good portion of the chart is built around this factor - if you think that this somehow entitles you to call me lazy or bad then you've got to be extremely short-sighted at best

Litharrale wrote:

This maps flow from one sound to another through patterning is janky, the LN lengths are weird and inconsistent and there are ghost notes left and right. None of these seem to be mistakes but rather done to make the map edgy and random so it stands out.
you shouldn't call something edgy and random simply because you don't understand the ideas of a less stringent (but still systematic) layering/patterning approach. it's hypocritical of you to call out on this map's less stringent layering/pattern when impulse state (which you faved) too has similar degrees of stringency

i'm personally extremely insulted by the absolute lack of depth and tact in this mod but who cares right you're the BN you call the shots and the bubble pops

Litharrale wrote:

Also, HP of 9.6 is practically unacceptable for a 3.6* map. Find better ways to stop people mashing
since when did you start using SR as an indicator for chart difficulty?
since when did charts need to have high SR to have high HP?

@rivals or maxus - feel free to continue, won't be actively pushing on my part but yeah; no change except for LN lengths at 00:58:429 - etc.
Litharrale
then i don't understand your intentions behind modding this chart - if you can "almost predict" what i was going to respond then what's the point
Because it's not a mod, it's a veto. This is also why I didn't include any solutions

.P.S to future BNs, don't forget to override my veto you need to explain why it's invalid
Topic Starter
Abraxos
What
Topic Starter
Abraxos

Litharrale wrote:

then i don't understand your intentions behind modding this chart - if you can "almost predict" what i was going to respond then what's the point
Because it's not a mod, it's a veto. This is also why I didn't include any solutions

.P.S to future BNs, don't forget to override my veto you need to explain why it's invalid
no BN has to go through with whatever you said because I have already explained myself on every single point of yours. If you think this somehow doesn't cut it then too bad it doesn't work this way

Please go away
Rivals_7

Litharrale wrote:

Because it's not a mod, it's a veto. This is also why I didn't include any solutions
...uh?
mod and a veto is literally the same thing.your words seems to implies " i dont understand this, i need more explanation" which shouldn't have to be a veto but a general overview of whats lacking, but still providing solutions. Mapper could pointing what is the flaws of your suggestion if rejected, then both of us could reach an agreement.

as i said few days ago in discord that abraxos seems to trying to not being repetitive, he changed his patterning on every bookmark he set. the song itself seems pretty repetitve on its percussion and he trying to differentiate them one to another, by following vocal, synths, or both into technically structural pattern. This is not about inconsistent,its about variation. I know you are even against copy-paste-like pattern to an extent most of the time.

00:40:209 (40209|0) - The transition between the sounds you are mapping starting from this bar is weird and janky because it just kind of randomly changes without a clear divison in the music or patterning.
even the song itself transitoned from percussion-oriented into synths-oriented so these "weird" transition is relevant.

Also, HP of 9.6 is practically unacceptable for a 3.6* map.
people shouldnt always have to stick to the current meta. This map is not designed for lowkey ranks acc farmer.

The only thing differentiating this from a brand new mapper's map is that it has "Abraxos" attached to it.
How is that even different? our name does not have any relevancy with our mapping quality.

None of these seem to be mistakes but rather done to make the map edgy and random so it stands out.
"Mapping is a social construct"

therefore i dont see this being not fit to ranked. Abraxos already replied. rechecked it and looks pretty relevant to me, so everything should be more clear.

comprehension reading is ngngngng forgive if there's misunderstanding
edit: ow sniped
Litharrale

Rivals_7 wrote:

...uh?
mod and a veto is literally the same thing.This isn't true.


your words seems to implies " i dont understand this, i need more explanation" which shouldn't have to be a veto but a general overview of whats lacking, but still providing solutions. Mapper could pointing what is the flaws of your suggestion if rejected, then both of us could reach an agreement. Unlikely, my suggestions for this map would essentially be "remap" which we all know Abraxos wouldn't ever consider. I don't think this map should ever be ranked which is why I veto'd it

as i said few days ago in discord that abraxos seems to trying to not being repetitive, he changed his patterning on every bookmark he set. the song itself seems pretty repetitve on its percussion and he trying to differentiate them one to another, by following vocal, synths, or both into technically structural pattern. This is not about inconsistent,its about variation. I know you are even against copy-paste-like pattern to an extent most of the time. Variation is good but it's not automatically good. The way this map flows is janky and it's disguised as "technical"

There's nothing more to be said here. Find another BN other than Rivals or me who will address my concerns. Just because you explained yourself doesn't mean this doesn't have to happen.
Pope Gadget
the only difference between a mod and a veto is how far along the map is during the stages of ranking. both require the same content.
Rivals_7

Litharrale wrote:

Rivals_7 wrote:

...uh?
mod and a veto is literally the same thing.This isn't true.


your words seems to implies " i dont understand this, i need more explanation" which shouldn't have to be a veto but a general overview of whats lacking, but still providing solutions. Mapper could pointing what is the flaws of your suggestion if rejected, then both of us could reach an agreement. Unlikely, my suggestions for this map would essentially be "remap" which we all know Abraxos wouldn't ever consider. I don't think this map should ever be ranked which is why I veto'd it Very weak argument. you are only looking at your perspective of mapping

as i said few days ago in discord that abraxos seems to trying to not being repetitive, he changed his patterning on every bookmark he set. the song itself seems pretty repetitve on its percussion and he trying to differentiate them one to another, by following vocal, synths, or both into technically structural pattern. This is not about inconsistent,its about variation. I know you are even against copy-paste-like pattern to an extent most of the time. Variation is good but it's not automatically good. The way this map flows is janky and it's disguised as "technical" so simply put its uncomfortable? maybe for you but maybe not for the others. again, you are only looking it based on your perspective, but not just that, you are also forced abrax to put on your perspective. which is already a violation on CoC

There's nothing more to be said here. Find another BN other than Rivals or me who will address my concerns. Just because you explained yourself doesn't mean this doesn't have to happen.
whoa dont you dare leaving a veto now without giving any counter argument to abraxos' veto response first. It is your responsibility now.
Litharrale

Rivals_7 wrote:

whoa dont you dare leaving a veto now without giving any counter argument to abraxos' veto response first. It is your responsibility now.

:cry:

it's just going to end up as dotabata 2.0

Abraxos is not going to give up his semi dump, and I'm not going to agree to let it through. I don't claim to be able to see the future but this ain't gonna go anywhere

As an example of how the response to his mod reply would go:


Abraxos wrote:

Litharrale wrote:

00:21:047 (21047|2,21073|0) - "arpeggioing" a snare like this is weird. A snare drum is hit once so having multiple notes at different times for the same sound doesn't really make sense. It also breaks the rule of "each note must be mapped to a distinct sound"

another misunderstanding
must've felt good to utilize the "oh ho it breaks this and this rule" catch, but then again it's not a misunderstanding because you really do only hit a snare drum once, there are no vocals here.
It wont be conducive to this map progressing anywhere and will just result in a couple of pages of nothing with a green name telling us to stop it at the end. I'm sure we all have much better things to do.

I'm not going to check this thread anymore as I'm 75% sure it's gonna go very quickly downhill, more than it already has. I'm contactable through discord if you really want me to continue the discussion (I will follow the rule if requested) but I'm sure we all know it won't result in any good.
Shoegazer
I think your main reservations with the chart come down to fundamental differences in charting ideology and overlooked sounds.

First 10 seconds

In the intro you establish this pattern of 1/4 LNs and singles. The 1/4 LNs appear to be attached to chords with notes in the bass clef, except this is only true some of the times. There are notes like this 00:02:984 (2984|0) - which is clearly has a bass sound attached to it.

Looking at a screenshot like this

You'd think that the notes in col 4 would have some very specific and strong purpose. This section is practically 3+1 and that's ok when it makes sense but...

It doesn't.

The one highlighted in blue isn't special and sounds just like the rest. But the note after it is a strong high note so maybe the theme is that col 4 is meant to launch you into the next bar? No because there are notes like this 00:04:083 (4083|3) -
PR'ing a countermelody and not the main melody has always been an acceptable method of patterning. I wouldn't have done it, but this is an acceptable patterning approach. The reason for this is that PRing two different melodies can clash, and trying to accommodate for one or the other while keeping the existence of pitch relevance for both melodies could make the patterns appear arbitrary. ExaVid's intro falls under this category.

The strict allocation of sounds to the 4th column seems like a misread on your end; the placement of 1/2s (barring the countermelody) are arbitrary, but it's no more arbitrary than people using any kind of double to accommodate for the presence of a bass kick. It's not ideal, but again, it's perfectly acceptable, and arbitrary patterning has been used in a multitude of ranked mapsets. The only point that I agree with would be the accidental ignorance of a note in the countermelody (e.g. 2.984), which could be accidentally ignored because it was on another octave.

00:20:837 (20837|1) - While we're on weird 1/6 notes, this should also be on the blue tick, I understand there is a sound there but there it is definitely not 1/6
There is a sound on the 1/6 tick. Other positions are not as valid because the sound is on the 1/6 tick.

00:21:047 (21047|2,21073|0) - "arpeggioing" a snare like this is weird. A snare drum is hit once so having multiple notes at different times for the same sound doesn't really make sense. It also breaks the rule of "each note must be mapped to a distinct sound"
This is fairly standard accentuation in "technically correct" 4K charting, and it has been used in conventional charting before. People use grace notes to accentuate certain buzz sounds, and people also use LNs to accentuate sounds that are not long. Unfortunately there aren't any mapsets that are ranked that utilise accentuation for instruments like that, but I thought a double would've been too concrete because the snare is very airy. It can be a standard double for sure since it's still a snare, but he wanted to emphasise the airiness of it. The lack of ranked mapsets that utilise accentuation of that nature does make this section contentious however, as much I see accentuation like this is used in multiple 4K communities that use a judging system more stringent than osu!mania's.

00:40:209 (40209|0) - The transition between the sounds you are mapping starting from this bar is weird and janky because it just kind of randomly changes without a clear divison in the music or patterning. There are notes here which are mapped to both, some that are mapped to one and some that are mapped to the other. It plays out so the only way to make sense of it is in the editor
How is it janky by any metric? He was layering the bells, and then the main synth when the bells are no longer present. There's no way of signalling a change here because of the presence of both rhythms are sudden. They are clear components of the music, and he layered them accordingly. There is a underlying (primary) melody in the bar you pointed out, but layering both the primary melody and the bells here creates convoluted patterning.

00:41:099 (41099|3) - this map is also a ghosttown (ha)
This is part of the bell. It's an echo, but there's a sound regardless. Echoes can be charted if they are prominent enough, and the echo here is arguably prominent enough. Considering how he has layered doubles (i.e. liberally), I think placing a note there is justifiable.

This maps flow from one sound to another through patterning is janky, the LN lengths are weird and inconsistent and there are ghost notes left and right. None of these seem to be mistakes but rather done to make the map edgy and random so it stands out.
Most of the chart utilises standard percussion-based layering, but with a situational rule: when 1/4s are present in a section and there are two bass kicks of the same type in a span of a 1/4 beat, the second bass kick will be a single, and the single will be on one of the two columns that the double that corresponded to the bass kick. This, again, is fairly standard layering. Many charters utilise that in mapsets to reduce the difficulty of a section that would've been too difficult if the rule was set. I don't agree with that kind of rule because there are better alternatives, but what I believe is ideal is not the only valid way to layer something according to ranking criteria.

Many sections that utilise more unconventional snapping/patterning (e.g. 40.209, 01:01:256 - ,) are justified by the existence of prominent rhythms or sounds present in the track. It would be unrealistic to layer both these prominent rhythms and the percussion because the end product will not be unambiguously representative of the "musical essence" of that section. They are justified not only through the presence of those sounds, but also the fact that these notes correspond to the presence of a sound in those particular moments. The only arbitrariness present, from what I can tell, are the LN lengths, and I do not utilise LN lengths as accentuation enough for me to say whether or not his accentuation is particularly out of bounds. I don't know of many ranked mapsets that utilise arbitrarily long LN lengths as well, partially because I'm not interested in accentuation of that kind, so I won't judge whether or not what he did is appropriate according to existing mapsets in the ranked section. The rest of the chart however, utilises standard accentuation that is well within the realm of technically correct 4K charting.

--

For what it's worth, I don't think ExaVid is a great chart, nor do I think it's even that good. My reservations with the chart stem from his layering, but there are many ranked mapsets that have issues that stem from liberal layering (e.g. Trigger, PLANET//SHAPER, Memoria, Zettai Raido, Tokyo Teddy Bear, and way more), so I don't think the chart is unrankable because of that. My opinion of the chart has no bearing on the rankability of this chart, especially when other charts that I consider to have similar but larger problems are ranked. You don't seem to have a reservation with his percussion layering based on your mod, however.

There's not much in the chart (that I can properly judge) that is unrankable, nor do I see many characteristics of it being a dump chart (or at least a chart that has some minor properties of dump charts). There are some non-conventional layering approaches here, but it is still strictly justified by the track itself. The only exception would be LN lengths, which, again, I don't wish to judge because I would be stepping out of my boundaries of understanding.

Lastly,

:cry:

Abraxos is not going to give up his semi dump, and I'm not going to agree to let it through. I don't claim to be able to see the future but this ain't gonna go anywhere
Aren't you forcing an impasse by not wanting to interact with him? You assumed that he was obstinate from the start by not giving many suggestions (other than one that he didn't agree with because his current configuration is more representative of the track than your suggestion). You did point out some sections that appear to be erroneous, but these sections either utilise conventional (but not as foundational) charting techniques that fall well within the realm of technically correct charting, or are not erroneous because they're justified by the presence and correct correspondence of sounds in the track.

I modded through this chart with him an hour ago, and while he seemed unsure about some of the suggestions I gave him, they were grounded by understandable concerns. He wanted to emphasise a different sound, but I felt his method of emphasis wasn't the most straight-forward, so I thought it would be better to remove the accentuation of that sound altogether. There are also some fundamental layering errors which were ironed out. There are some unconventional patterns that I felt were too arbitrary due to similar sounds having a completely different pattern, which he agreed on the basis of consistency, despite not being fully comfortable with it.

mod, no kds please
[1:09 PM] Erin: the main reservation I have is that there aren't any ranked charts that use ghost notes in the same manner you did
[1:11 PM] _A: where are the ghosts then
[1:11 PM] _A: don't think they're too hard to remove
[1:11 PM] _A: unless it's part of something
[1:11 PM] Erin: they're not "ghost" in a sense that they're not justified to anything at all
[1:11 PM] Erin: they're ghost in a sense that certain sounds correspond to two different moments of the chart
[1:12 PM] Erin: e.g. a flam
[1:12 PM] Erin: like the snare bit
[1:12 PM] _A: what snare bit?
[1:12 PM] Erin: the 1/12
[1:12 PM] _A: those aren't even ghosts
[1:12 PM] _A: honestly i think the separation in hands is enough to tell the difference
[1:12 PM] _A: unless somewhere i placed them on the same hand
[1:13 PM] Erin: 31
[1:13 PM] _A: which then would be wrong
[1:13 PM] _A: oh those
[1:13 PM] _A: well those are an easy fix lmao
[1:13 PM] Erin: i can probably say that they go to echo but that's still not particularly sound(edited)
[1:13 PM] _A: though i'd like it to be there but if you don't want it then that's fine
[1:14 PM] _A: i can use some double LN thing
[1:15 PM] _A: is just fine as well
[1:16 PM] _A: edited btw
[1:16 PM] Erin: the [14] here should be 4 https://imgur-archive.ppy.sh/discord/200566180233084928-392183256277188609-unknown.png
[1:16 PM] Erin: 21.xxx(edited)
[1:16 PM] Erin: there's two bass kicks of the same type
[1:16 PM] _A: uhhh
[1:16 PM] _A: im blind help
[1:16 PM] Erin: hm?
[1:16 PM] _A: cant see shit
[1:16 PM] _A: circle?
[1:17 PM] Erin: uhhh
[1:17 PM] Erin: it's the one with the 1/6
[1:17 PM] Erin: basically there's two bass kicks of the same type, and you layered both as doubles
[1:17 PM] _A: ok i see
[1:17 PM] _A: this thin
[1:17 PM] _A: edited
[1:17 PM] Erin: ye
[1:17 PM] Erin: it happens throughout, seems like a mistake
[1:17 PM] _A: im dumbo
[1:17 PM] Erin: because you've done the same for every other bass kick
[1:17 PM] _A: ya edited for that part and uh
[1:17 PM] _A: lemme find
[1:18 PM] Erin: you did miss the bass note in 2.984 btw
[1:18 PM] _A: dont think there's another part in the song that's the same
[1:18 PM] _A: 2.984?
[1:18 PM] Erin: it's of a higher octave
[1:18 PM] Erin: that's probably why you missed it
[1:18 PM] Erin: yeah, the intro
[1:19 PM] _A: i went by what i heard honestly
[1:19 PM] _A: and if i didn't hear it at the time i personally think it's not worth LNing
[1:20 PM] Erin: well again, it's of a higher octave
[1:20 PM] _A: hmmmm
[1:20 PM] _A: i could stackem
[1:20 PM] _A: if you want
[1:20 PM] Erin: you can just make it a LN on 1(edited)
[1:20 PM] _A: but but
[1:20 PM] Erin: higher octave
[1:20 PM] _A: the other LNs are lower
[1:20 PM] Erin: in conventional PR, an ascending piano melody will be patterned as 1234123412341234
[1:21 PM] _A: :(
[1:21 PM] Erin: it functions as a fiat octave
[1:21 PM] _A: i thought the stacking idea was cooler
[1:21 PM] Erin: "hurrrr random"
[1:21 PM] _A: gr
[1:21 PM] _A: ugh it feels weird making this the same
[1:22 PM] _A: gay or not gay https://imgur-archive.ppy.sh/discord/200566180233084928-392184812258983937-unknown.png?width=838&height=472
[1:22 PM] Erin: that's probably fine, accentuation and all
[1:22 PM] _A: ha
[1:23 PM] _A: gotem
[1:23 PM] Erin: and I don't know of any mapsets that utilise accents(edited)
[1:23 PM] _A: those charts aren't my charts you see
[1:23 PM] _A: edited
[1:24 PM] Erin: for 9.267, why is the LN 1/6 length exactly? the LNs go to the bass melody yes, but I'm unsure of why the length of it is different from others?
[1:24 PM] Erin: because it's a briefer sound?
[1:24 PM] _A: it's a completely different tone for the main synth
[1:24 PM] _A: but the bass stays the same
[1:25 PM] _A: so for bass it's LN and same column
then for main ir's just the change in LN length(edited)
[1:25 PM] _A: t
[1:25 PM] _A: fnigne
[1:25 PM] Erin: that's a fairly... complicated structure
[1:25 PM] _A: is it?
[1:25 PM] _A: the first iteration introduced the player to the bass ln concept
[1:25 PM] Erin: yes, but the LNs are all of the same length
[1:25 PM] Erin: iirc
[1:25 PM] _A: in the second iteration there's a change and hence the length here changes which is a new thing
[1:26 PM] _A: so players are already used to the bass ln thing
[1:26 PM] Erin: yes, but they wouldn't expect the LN lengths to change because the melody is practically the same
[1:26 PM] Erin: it'd be more blatant for layering
[1:26 PM] Erin: but I don't think it's entirely conspicuous with LN lengths
[1:26 PM] _A: would it be better if i made 00:02:984 - different lengths from the usual 1/4(edited)
[1:27 PM] _A: honestly speaking the tone there is diminished so it already warrants some form of differentiation
[1:27 PM] Erin: I think it's better to make everything the same length since you're PRing the bass countermelody, and the more straight-forward approach would be to have LN lengths correspond to the presence of the bass synth
[1:27 PM] Erin: I know what you're doing, don't get me wrong
[1:28 PM] Erin: but it's hard to track
[1:28 PM] _A: i really don't like that because it ignores the whole point of the diminished tone there
[1:28 PM] _A: it doesn't sit well with me at all
[1:29 PM] _A: what if i stacked the notes there then
[1:29 PM] _A: wait lemme
[1:29 PM] Erin: stacking would be odd to emphasise something that's diminishing in presence
[1:30 PM] _A: https://imgur-archive.ppy.sh/sutXXYT.png first iteration https://imgur-archive.ppy.sh/2qufard.png second

diminished notes sound awkward because they leave the listener hanging - there's not a lot of ways of presenting this awkwardness

[1:32 PM] Erin: see like I don't agree with this technique personally, mostly because I can't tell much of a fundamental difference between the melodies(edited)
[1:32 PM] _A: hmm
[1:32 PM] _A: well
[1:32 PM] _A: if you asked me ranking this is pretty secondary
[1:32 PM] _A: so you don't have to take that into account
[1:33 PM] Erin: but it's brought up regardless
[1:33 PM] _A:
>> mostly because I can't tell much of a fundamental difference between the melodies
i just cannot agree because of how diminished tones function really
[1:33 PM] _A: i mean
[1:33 PM] _A: it's just not the same feeling
[1:34 PM] Erin: is this the only LN that has a different length?
[1:34 PM] Erin: i can't tell atm since I'm using arrowvortex
[1:34 PM] _A: i can make it such that it's the only one, or accompanied by the higher octave 00:02:984 - ones here (these then will be 1/3 long)
[1:35 PM] Erin: if it's the only sound with a diminished tone (out of the entire introduction), you can justify the shorter LN length with the presence of a diminished tone
[1:35 PM] Erin: I don't agree with it fundamentally, but you can justify it that way
[1:35 PM] Erin: it's not random because it's the only time it appears
[1:36 PM] Erin: it can be arguably arbitrary, but if there's a fundamental difference in sound, the only arbitrariness of that is the fact that it's of a shorter length
[1:36 PM] Erin: but again, that's how accentuation works in the first place
[1:36 PM] Erin: a lot of people use LNs for accentuate sounds that aren't long, etc.
[1:37 PM] _A: so uh
[1:38 PM] _A: i'm keeping it i guess
[1:38 PM] Erin: it's the only one like that so
[1:38 PM] _A: i made the uhh higher octave one 1/4 long
[1:38 PM] _A: ya
[1:38 PM] Erin: yeah, fine then
[1:38 PM] _A: is that all?
[1:39 PM] Erin: nah, there's more
[1:39 PM] _A: how much more
[1:40 PM] _A: be quick i kinda need to like
[1:40 PM] Erin: there's a few more "ghost notes"
[1:40 PM] _A: do work stuff
[1:40 PM] Erin: ""
[1:40 PM] _A: lol where
[1:41 PM] Erin: you know that place where he mentioned that it was a ghost town or so?
[1:41 PM] _A: i've already talked about this
[1:41 PM] Erin: yeah
[1:42 PM] Erin: I get what you're trying to do, I'm going to see if it actually matches up
[1:44 PM] Erin: that part is probably unrankable unless there's newer rules unfortunately, I know what you're trying to do, and I think it makes sense, but it's not allowed because there has been no mapsets like this that are ranked(edited)
[1:44 PM] _A: can you point to which rule
[1:44 PM] Erin: you can somewhat chalk it up to accentuation
[1:44 PM] Erin: "every note must correspond to a sound"
[1:44 PM] _A: my god
[1:45 PM] _A: but there is a sound
[1:45 PM] _A: i don't get it
[1:45 PM] Erin: the sound must be on that specific moment(edited)
[1:46 PM] _A: it is?
[1:46 PM] Erin: that's the crux of it
[1:46 PM] Erin: i can't hear it
[1:46 PM] _A: well i can
[1:46 PM] _A: so what now
[1:47 PM] Erin: are you layering the bell?
[1:47 PM] _A: where
[1:47 PM] Erin: 41s or so
[1:48 PM] _A: yea
[1:48 PM] Erin: alright, there's a sound there
[1:48 PM] Erin: you're almost layering it strictly
[1:48 PM] Erin: just have to shift them a tiny bit
[1:48 PM] Erin: but it's the same distance essentially
[1:52 PM] Erin: 40.837 - move this down a 1/8
40.955 - move this down a 1/8
[1:53 PM] _A: oh if you want to do this then parts like 01:24:816 - are fucked essentially
[1:53 PM] _A: honestly if you don't want to then you don't have to go through this
[1:54 PM] Erin: >> [1:53 PM] _A: oh if you want to do this then parts like 01:24:816 - are fucked essentially

how?(edited)
[1:54 PM] Erin: there's nothing related there
[1:54 PM] _A: listen to them closely
[1:54 PM] _A: they're off
[1:54 PM] _A: an didn't snap them exactly to 1/4s
[1:55 PM] Erin: a 1/6 sounds right to me?
[1:55 PM] _A: 00:40:837 - i don't think this would be on a 1/8? circumstantially all the vocals have started on a white tick
00:40:942 - around here however it's 1/3 woops
[1:56 PM] _A: it sounds right on 1/4 too so yeah i don't even know man
[1:56 PM] Erin: i'm using a waveform + slowed down music without artefacts
[1:57 PM] Erin: the only thing other than that is the chorus
[1:57 PM] Erin: the 332/223 thing(edited)
[1:58 PM] Erin: the rest is standard percussion-based layering
[1:58 PM] Erin: there isn't a 1/4, it's just 1/2s
[1:58 PM] Erin: you can place a LN on the second 1/2
[1:58 PM] _A: oh ya i did that
[1:59 PM] _A: alright makes more sense
[2:01 PM] _A: https://imgur-archive.ppy.sh/discord/200566180233084928-392193856524779520-unknown.png?width=344&height=471
[2:00 PM] Erin: what
[2:00 PM] Erin: there's a clear 1/4 violin rhythm there
[2:01 PM] Erin: was pointing out 01:24:895 -
[2:01 PM] _A: tell me earlier then
[2:01 PM] Erin: i couldn't tell
[2:02 PM] Erin: editor makes it near-impossible for me because it's in downscroll
[2:02 PM] _A: donez
[2:02 PM] Erin: + a lack of colours
[2:02 PM] _A: yeah that's fine
[2:03 PM] Erin: 01:35:183 - use LNs here?(edited)
[2:03 PM] Erin: since you've used it for similar sounds before
[2:03 PM] Erin: 01:49:319 - different bass kick, use a double here
[2:05 PM] _A: muh emphaseize
[2:05 PM] Erin: my point is to emphasise it in a different way
[2:05 PM] _A: ik
[2:06 PM] _A: i don't like the LN thing above but sigh
[2:06 PM] _A: done it anyway
[2:06 PM] Erin: it repeats a lot so you have to keep track of that
[2:06 PM] _A: i didn't want it to be LN because the section was predominantly streams and
[2:07 PM] _A: yeah whatever
[2:07 PM] _A: it's not a big deal
[2:07 PM] Erin: there's one more section but it's more of a layering thing
[2:08 PM] Erin: 03:43:193 - should be a single, since it's the same bass kick as the bass kick before it
[2:08 PM] Erin: repeats throughout this section
[2:10 PM] _A: can this be disparate from the first portion because this portion talks about just chords
[2:10 PM] _A: idk i'm
[2:10 PM] _A: too tired to explain myself
[2:10 PM] Erin: you can, but I don't see much of a reason to make an exception for that
[2:11 PM] _A: because it's just chording here
[2:11 PM] Erin: unless you reduced density to accommodate for playability/musical relevance
[2:11 PM] Erin: thought so
[2:11 PM] Erin: I don't agree with it, but that's not a concern because it's typical layering(edited)
[2:13 PM] Erin: 04:01:413 - shift this to 2, creating a minijack breaks the double bass kick rule
[2:17 PM] _A: i just want to stop looking like some kind of stubborn old mule lith is painting me to be
[2:17 PM] _A: everything edited alright
[2:18 PM] _A: is that all
[2:18 PM] Erin: should be

Giving suggestions are completely valid, and he isn't particularly adamant towards changing something for the sake of consistency. I don't see a reason why you shouldn't be giving a feedback, especially since it's part of the rules, unless you sternly believe that he is not cooperative, which isn't true.

It wont be conducive to this map progressing anywhere and will just result in a couple of pages of nothing with a green name telling us to stop it at the end. I'm sure we all have much better things to do.
75-80% of the chart uses standard percussion-based layering. You wouldn't be committing that much time into changing the other 20-25% of the chart, especially since these concepts repeat throughout the chart.

Tactlessness of the veto post aside (which undoubtedly contributed to his hostility towards you in his posts; I would be impressed to see a new charter make a chart like ExaVid), your reason for veto'ing something stems from a narrow scope of technically correct charting; a scope that is far smaller than what the ranking criteria allows. Your obstinancy and lack of cooperation are hindering the progression of this chart more than the supposed rankability of this chart, in this case.

I agree that variation for the sake of it is intrinsically bad because it hurts musical relevance and structural consistency, but I don't think ExaVid is a strong offender of that principle.
Topic Starter
Abraxos
i guess it's relevant to put my own statements in because this is my chart after all

i'll say this again - if anyone wants to push this i will assist, but i will not be doing the pushing

it's just going to end up like dotabata 2.0

It wont be conducive to this map progressing anywhere and will just result in a couple of pages of nothing with a green name telling us to stop it at the end. I'm sure we all have much better things to do.

I'm not going to check this thread anymore as I'm 75% sure it's gonna go very quickly downhill, more than it already has. I'm contactable through discord if you really want me to continue the discussion (I will follow the rule if requested) but I'm sure we all know it won't result in any good.
if you want to paint me as some old, lanky stubborn mule then, by all means, please go ahead - i couldn't care less as to how you portray me as

what i despise more though, is how misplaced your priorities are

"Because it's not a mod, it's a veto. This is also why I didn't include any solutions" - litharrale, o!m BN

a bn who refuses to even try help others, and uses the alleged stubbornness of the mapper as a shield for his adamancy.
how pathetic
juankristal
Calm down a bit shall we?

A veto is indeed showing that you are not fine with something thats getting on the way to ranked for whatever reasons. Thus reasons have to be explained and detailed and providing potential solutions to the issue. It's the choice of the BN to continue the veto regardless of what happens if he doesnt find that the answers or changes are satisfying his opinion.

If Lith believes this set is not ready then prove him wrong and convince him instead of hating him (even though I dont really love the way he approached this initially but I dont think it was the intention either?). And as he said, worst case scenario you can get one more bn to pass without having to worry about the veto.

For the future though, and as a personal suggestion, I would ask you Lith to include an actual mod while you are doing a veto (or at least, provide solutions for the biggest issues). That being said, if you dont do that then read carefuly the answers that the mapper provides because else you have no reason to actually take the veto out and that would be kinda pointless imo. Of course there are always extreme cases where you just cant let that go but here it did seem like a sort of minor reason to veto. Just my thought though, havent follow this as closely.

Keep this clean, thats it. No hate for anyone and lets just all work together to push this forward if the mapper wants to.
Topic Starter
Abraxos
Hello juan

I would like to point out that all of his points have already been addressed in a former post (re: p/6406668/)
Though I may be inclined to agree that my latter responses have been a little bit abrasive, I reserve the right to at least be upset at lith's lack of professionalism and general competency in regards to his general approach on this chart .

That being said, I will reiterate: I am neutral/passive to the progress of this chart, I know some people like it and if those people are willing to push this chart forward then I will do all I can to assist them in that regard. Otherwise, it'll be a no go for me.
Litharrale
hey im withdrawing my pop from this map. I dont like it at all and I dont think it should be ranked but my pop wasn't up to quality standards and i cant be bothered to go through and suggest how I would do it

feel free to rebub someone
Topic Starter
Abraxos
oh, uh

Abraxos wrote:

That being said, I will reiterate: I am neutral/passive to the progress of this chart, I know some people like it and if those people are willing to push this chart forward then I will do all I can to assist them in that regard. Otherwise, it'll be a no go for me.
this

+ i will be busy with schoolwork tilll late march so i can't exactly tend to this so

perhaps you'll get what you want Litharrale uw u
Maxus
well i will continue this map progress then, hope this will reach rank state rival where r u

[at the threshold]
00:12:094 (12094|2,12251|2,12408|2) - not sure if this is supposed to be triple stack since other similar places don't have that, maybe try move 00:12:408 (12408|2) - to col 4?

00:29:685 (29685|3) - change to LN here? prefer it keeps the consistency with other LN.

00:32:827 (32827|1,32827|0,32984|1,33062|0,33141|1) - Kinda personal, but personally not really fan of this somehow, i think making 00:32:984 (32984|1,33062|0,33141|1) - 1-2-1 is better here. the same with 00:37:853 -

00:41:544 - is this purposely being lefted to emphasize 00:41:623 (41623|0) - ? just wanna make sure.

00:45:942 (45942|3,46099|3) - These notes somehow for me making the emphasis at short LN which mapping the wub2 sound much weaker. If you say "yes" to my previous line of mod, this one kinda contradicts it. delete these notes make the wub gets more accent. same with 00:50:968 -

00:52:774 (52774|3) - Slightly lower PR than 00:52:931 - , move to col 3? same with 00:57:801 -

01:16:806 - The minitrill although seem to be a small one, when combined with 01:15:706 - causing the player to be stumbled easier, personally i recommend something like https://puu.sh/yQGCS/f1171fe4c7.png here.

03:13:193 (193193|2) - move to col 4 due to slightly higher vocal PR?

03:16:649 (196649|0) - This kinda have quite vocal differences with 03:17:120 (197120|0) - , move to col 4 will accent that better.

03:23:403 - Should be double note for consistency with 03:25:916 -

03:26:937 - Double note too for consistency with 03:24:424 -

03:35:654 - Should be single note? since at 03:25:602 - 03:28:115 - its all single note.

03:40:209 - having some sort of extra emphasis here is nice (double LN or something maybe)

03:46:492 (226492|2,226492|3) - try move them to col 2 and col 3? i know emptying col 2 is your intention for pitch purpose, but for me :
1.when the music already enter 03:46:178 - , it's already a new stanza here, so i think you can change the "ruling" here.
2. at 03:56:387 - when its new stanza you don't apply col 2 empty rule here.
3. this one almost the same piano as 03:47:277 - , more flowy to combine them.

03:56:544 (236544|2,236544|3) - you might also arrange this so it can be at col 2 and 3 too.

04:44:293 (284293|2,284293|0) - Switch column here? pitch between 04:43:821 (283821|2,284293|2) - have quite distinct differences, compared with 04:50:104 (290104|0,290575|0) - that's really similar in pitch.

Well, since you said you wanna assist to push this map, i might as well try to :P sorry i just do it now x.x
Topic Starter
Abraxos
yello

Maxus wrote:

well i will continue this map progress then, hope this will reach rank state rival where r u thonk

[at the threshold]
00:12:094 (12094|2,12251|2,12408|2) - not sure if this is supposed to be triple stack since other similar places don't have that, maybe try move 00:12:408 (12408|2) - to col 4? done

00:29:685 (29685|3) - change to LN here? prefer it keeps the consistency with other LN. i changed the structure of it

00:32:827 (32827|1,32827|0,32984|1,33062|0,33141|1) - Kinda personal, but personally not really fan of this somehow, i think making 00:32:984 (32984|1,33062|0,33141|1) - 1-2-1 is better here. the same with 00:37:853 - i personally think it's fine? it gives a motion that i'm sending the attention to the right which makes sense since the followup of this part is a jack at 3. same for the second one

00:41:544 - is this purposely being lefted to emphasize 00:41:623 (41623|0) - ? just wanna make sure.ye

00:45:942 (45942|3,46099|3) - These notes somehow for me making the emphasis at short LN which mapping the wub2 sound much weaker. If you say "yes" to my previous line of mod, this one kinda contradicts it. delete these notes make the wub gets more accent. same with 00:50:968 - i did some magic thing here

00:52:774 (52774|3) - Slightly lower PR than 00:52:931 - , move to col 3? same with 00:57:801 - dddd

01:16:806 - The minitrill although seem to be a small one, when combined with 01:15:706 - causing the player to be stumbled easier, personally i recommend something like https://puu.sh/yQGCS/f1171fe4c7.png here. they're meant to trip people up ow o - 01:16:649 (76649|2,76688|1,76884|2,76884|1,77120|1,77120|2) - the bass beats stick to one column at a time

03:13:193 (193193|2) - move to col 4 due to slightly higher vocal PR? sdsdsa

03:16:649 (196649|0) - This kinda have quite vocal differences with 03:17:120 (197120|0) - , move to col 4 will accent that better. dqdasd

03:23:403 - Should be double note for consistency with 03:25:916 - a lil too weak for me; this part is already dense as hell so

03:26:937 - Double note too for consistency with 03:24:424 - ^^^

03:35:654 - Should be single note? since at 03:25:602 - 03:28:115 - its all single note. derp

03:40:209 - having some sort of extra emphasis here is nice (double LN or something maybe) i think the reducation in density is a good enough emphasis for me

03:46:492 (226492|2,226492|3) - try move them to col 2 and col 3? i know emptying col 2 is your intention for pitch purpose, but for me :
1.when the music already enter 03:46:178 - , it's already a new stanza here, so i think you can change the "ruling" here.
2. at 03:56:387 - when its new stanza you don't apply col 2 empty rule here.
3. this one almost the same piano as 03:47:277 - , more flowy to combine them.
i cleaned the whole thing so the only constant in this part is snare = [13] or [24] and bass [12] or [34]

03:56:544 (236544|2,236544|3) - you might also arrange this so it can be at col 2 and 3 too.^^^

04:44:293 (284293|2,284293|0) - Switch column here? pitch between 04:43:821 (283821|2,284293|2) - have quite distinct differences, compared with 04:50:104 (290104|0,290575|0) - that's really similar in pitch. derp

Well, since you said you wanna assist to push this map, i might as well try to :P sorry i just do it now x.x i've been busy too so it's not a problem
map has changed quite drastically since he last modded, so i'm giving kudos because of that consideration
i will probably clean this map more later
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply