Guest
home
beatmaps
rankings
community
store
help
forum
  1. Forums
  2. Beatmaps
  3. Ranked Beatmaps (Archived)
  4. Pending Beatmaps

An - ExaVid [OsuMania]

posted
Total Posts
55
show more
Litharrale
705 posts
Joined August 2013
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
Abraxos
855 posts
Joined October 2014
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
705 posts
Joined August 2013
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
Abraxos
855 posts
Joined October 2014
Topic Starter
Abraxos
What
Abraxos
855 posts
Joined October 2014
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
Last edited by Abraxos , edited 3 times in total.
Rivals_7
Beatmap Nominator
2,978 posts
Joined July 2014
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
705 posts
Joined August 2013
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
osu! Alumni
328 posts
Joined January 2013
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
Beatmap Nominator
2,978 posts
Joined July 2014
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
705 posts
Joined August 2013
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
osu!mania Paragon
528 posts
Joined April 2013
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.
Last edited by Shoegazer , edited 2 times in total.
Abraxos
855 posts
Joined October 2014
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
osu! Alumni
1,408 posts
Joined August 2010
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.
Abraxos
855 posts
Joined October 2014
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
705 posts
Joined August 2013
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
Abraxos
855 posts
Joined October 2014
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
Nomination Assessment Team
1,238 posts
Joined May 2014
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
Abraxos
855 posts
Joined October 2014
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
Abraxos
855 posts
Joined October 2014
Topic Starter
Abraxos
contingent update: i may be restepping this chart, but that'll only be able to happen after the end of feburary (after 8th march to be exact). if the BNs are comfortable with the current chart i'd be fine with going with it but i feel like i can do so much better than what i currently have.

my best guess is that the changes won't be extremely drastic, but some sections will definitely look different from the current chart

sry if u modded the map early but :(
Maxus
Nomination Assessment Team
1,238 posts
Joined May 2014
Maxus
I'm quite happy with the current state of the map tbh xd
But if you wish to remap some part, it's up to you, i will wait and remod again at march owo

Anyway, good luck ;)
Abraxos
855 posts
Joined October 2014
Topic Starter
Abraxos

Maxus wrote:

I'm quite happy with the current state of the map tbh xd
But if you wish to remap some part, it's up to you, i will wait and remod again at march owo

Anyway, good luck ;)
Thx for understanding uw u I'll call you back when things are settled
Abraxos
855 posts
Joined October 2014
Topic Starter
Abraxos
see below
Abraxos
855 posts
Joined October 2014
Topic Starter
Abraxos
IT's dONE

structure/logic/pacing of the map here. please read before actually modding
00:00:000 - 00:10:052 - no change, LNs represent points in piano noting where there's dissonant bass chords; shorter 1/6 ones represent that dissonant chord changing from the usual bass to something more diminished, longer 1/2 LN represents the collision the extant diminished chord and a moderately higher pitched dissonant bass chord. 1/6s change position according to the closeness of the pitches [w]

00:10:052 - 00:20:104 - establishment of a proper structure (1)
bass-snare pairs are made into a jump-note jack, while double bass-airy snare pairs are made into a jack + glut? sort of thing on the same hand. other pieces of the puzzle are easy to pick up

00:20:104 - 00:28:900 - introduction of variance into (1), hereby now called (1a).
airy vocal synths are followed, all within the same column for further obviousness. background growing synth is lightly followed by breaking the usual 124312/other extant patterns with some anchored streams.

00:28:900 - 00:30:157 - first minor build-up of sounds.
remodelled to use both hands; each with their own purposes.
RHS deals with lighter, more electronic beat.
LHS deals with the descending piano pitch.

00:30:157 - 00:38:952 - further variance of (1a), now called (1b).
now the background synths are much more prominent; especially at 00:33:298 - places like these - further anchoring is introduced to touch on these synths.
the usual [12] [34] and related patterns for the bass-kick 00:36:439 - parts are also broken in this section, to touch on those synths.

00:38:952 - 00:40:209 - first big build-up
RHS focus - anchors leading into a single LN for emphasis on the growing crescendo of sounds.
00:39:581 - 00:40:052 - first times the synth is doubled (if i did this correctly) - since anchoring has already been used to demonstrate the rising synth i cannot use anchors again to represent the pitches of the piano thing.
hence, 00:39:581 (39581|0,39581|3,39738|3,39738|1,39895|0,39895|3,40052|3,40052|2) - chording was used to follow up with the jumping of piano pitches relevantly. chording also somewhat contributes to the build-up of intensity.

00:40:209 - 00:50:261 - no change. simple emphasis on the most extant synth sections, ignoring the airy vocals just for players to focus on those extant synths (2)

00:50:261 - 00:59:528 - same guiding principle of give and change. (2) is layered with additional sounds, guitar and some other synths. (2a).

00:59:528 - 01:00:314 - second minor buildup of sounds.
inverses a little following the pitches, then ends all LN ends at 01:00:157 - to make way for the last note.

01:00:314 - 01:10:366 - a step-up from (1b) - hereby now called (3). similar prinicples with the (1) family, except a bit thicker in its regard.
01:00:314 -
01:01:570 - minor differences in pew pew direction to emphasize on their differences in sound
01:02:356 - pitches are now separated into 144, with the last note being a double to touch on the difference in pitch. same occurrence should be evident throughout

01:10:366 - 01:11:308 - minor edits - 1/6 for second chord for two reasons:
1) further emphasis on decrease in pitch
2) 1/6 use for vocals

01:11:623 - 01:19:162 -
(3) same principles, except with additional emphasis on repeated hihats 01:18:691 - 01:19:005 - . all face the same direction because of left-right directionality emphasis
01:19:162 - intentional bias on the right, so the left-right directionality thing comes full circle
01:19:947 - 1/6s become anchored, further capping off the 3434 stream above

01:20:418 - 01:30:471 - snappings have completely changed - original were off by like 100000

01:30:471 - 01:50:575 -
completely changed, structure takes on a more clinical approach - the snares go from [14] to [23] to [24] and finally [34], where patterns have to be completely changed to accommodate. representative of "cornering" of the playfield, similar in fashion yet stronger in nature than the left-right discrimination gimmick (4)

01:50:575 - 02:00:628 - magic happens
anchor to 1 for the bass line synth - 1/6 LNs (outside of 01:53:089 (113089|0,113246|0,113560|0,113717|0,114031|0,114188|0) - ) are used for the 1st and 3rd beat, while 1/4s are used for the 2nd and 4th beat. there's a certain feeling of stepping up and down in the tonal structure of this section, and i thought the "stepping up and down" of LN ends reflected that feeling accurately (this was also done in the beginning)
01:57:486 - and relevant parts - the stepping down rule inverts here because of the pitches, listen carefully. 5th beat becomes higher than the 6th (i think they actually just swap pitches), hence the difference in LN length JUST FOR 01:57:486 - only.

01:53:089 (113089|0,113246|0,113560|0,113717|0,114031|0,114188|0) -
the first iteration of this anchors on 1 (as with the bass line synth), the LNs increase by 1/12 every iteration to reflect the thinning out of the density
01:58:115 (118115|0,118272|0,118586|0,118743|0,119057|0,119214|0) -
second iteration is more extreme than the first, starting out already thin and thinning out even further.
01:59:057 - a note was used for the very thinnest of synth sounds in this part

02:00:628 - 02:08:167 - should be obvious what the intruding notes go to. (5)
THE SNAPS SHOULD BE CORRECT
02:09:109 - the LNs just disappear here because i want the piano to take center stage here before entering into the next section

02:10:680 - 02:29:528 - (5a) if you pay attention, you can see that this section is just a very very smashed together rehash of (5) - the convolution is intentional, i wanted this part to peak in terms of stringent inherent backing structure, to a point where the snare = [13] rule and whatever breaks down and gives way to the piano. again, (if i may pray to god) An kept the snaps of the piano the same as (5) so the snaps should be fine

02:30:157 - 02:30:785 - the LNs only serve to put the players down for a while, due to how they encourage a right-left directionality. sort of like a untuning of the structure and convolution up to this point, given how i constantly touched on going left to right in pattern directionality (and implictly upwards in intensity, at least imo - stagehands enter the play from the left and exit from the right, left has been long associated with evil/bad and right with purity/goodness [Ecclesiastes 10:2; Matthew 25:33; Genesis 48:17-19, etc.]). this also explains why i kept the somewhat? right-sided bias, to just keep people on the edge. refer to diff name for more info.

02:30:785 - 02:39:424 - what better way to ensure absolute neutrality in hand balance than to put everything in the middle?
also the snaps should be correct, i'm 90% sure
02:38:599 (158599|2,159083|1) - these things go to the double bass in the music, i realised the 1/4s don't actually exist lolmao
the LNs again follow similar logic in the thinning out of density

02:40:837 - 02:50:890 - the percussion here is interesting, because i hear this sort of "pass the ball" sort of rhythm to it

kick and a kick snare ---- kick rim kick and-a snare

by presenting itself as a back-and-forth rhythm (much like a 131 pattern in charting, for example), i thought it'd be cool to actually reflect such a thing. hence there's pretty strict parity of kick ([12] for e.g.) and snare ([34] for e.g.), and the effect repeats itself for 4 rounds as with the song. i chose to go with the [14]-[23] pair in the second half because it's way more obvious to the player what i'm doing with them than [13]-[24]
02:42:722 - chord is different because bass kick is different

02:50:890 - 03:05:968 - the rules get crazier
the usual bass kick is [12] or [34], dependent on the direction of patterning in the measure. double bass kicks (e.g. 02:51:047 - ] have their second jack delegated to the snare, because that is what i wanted to emphasize here.

if you listen carefully, you can hear this movement of tonal structure in the music:
------------------
02:50:890 to 02:53:403 - down low
02:53:403 to 02:55:916 - a middle range increase, goes back down
02:55:916 to 02:58:429 - down low, increases at the end
02:58:429 to 03:00:942 - barely increases enough to reach the correct mark of pitch to end the journey, basically causing the listener to restart from the bottom
------------------
03:00:942 to 03:03:455 - down low again
03:03:455 to 03:05:968 - a middle range increase, this time it doesn't go back down
03:05:968 to 03:07:225 - maintains a steady pace in pitch
03:07:225 to 03:08:481 - a sudden jump, even closer to the "closing" of pitches than before; however An decides not to do that and lets the synth take over at the end of section - and we're left with this sense of non-closure
------------------
and the snares correspond roughly to this same journey - [23]s correspond to the lower portions of the structure, while [13]s and [24] correspond to a closer reach in "structural completeness", with the one that's more far to the right being the one that's closer to it. [14]s correspond to the mark of a sudden jump - signals that we're getting somewhere, since [14]s are more neutral in look than [13]/[24]s and are identifiably different in structure than [23]s, being perceived as more "open"
there's some other goings-on in this section, but this covers the overall gist of it

03:10:994 - 03:21:069 - lays out the foundation of the next section, very basic in the overall structure (6)

03:21:069 - 03:40:859 - so uh
1) (6) - borrows:
elements of vocals in the section very subtly, aside from the 1/6 LN glottal stops. main anchor is still on 3 predominantly for the vocals because pitch
03:22:639 (202639|0,202953|0) - the synth thing, now in 1/4s because An changed it here
2) new things include:
usual elements from (3), except 03:22:325 - timing is tighter for the grace
elements from (4), except 03:30:336 - timing is also tighter for the 1/4s, with the second LN being longer due to a longer relative pitch
+ a couple more things, i think you'll be able to see them if you look close
so the concept of the chart kinda ties into here greatly, since this section is pretty much a mash of all the previously introduced concepts and can be considered(?) to be the kiai part of the song, honestly. hence things ramp up here considerably
also if you noticed the RHS bias is (somewhat) gone, it's pretty much intentional since i think the song already built-up enough to the vocals at 02:30:179 -, and now we're just headed for a kinda like a mediatory state? imagine climbing a mountain and whilst you're not really there yet you already have this sense of accomplishment **thus far** and are able to (somewhat again) handle the things the song gives to you
this point is better illustrated in the next section

03:40:859 - 04:01:121 -
this part is (essentially) the same as before, it's piss easy because of that interim reason i gave above.

04:01:278 - 04:20:440 -
so the backbone of this structure is the percussion of the section
https://i.imgur.com/WqZbvhQ.png basically this layering repeats itself throughout the entire section
BUT
the directionality of the chordings for bass kicks change in both magnitude and direction depending on the general direction of tone in the track
case 1) 04:01:278 (241278|1,241278|0,241592|2,241592|1,242378|1,242378|2,242849|2,242849|3) - goes higher, hence to the right
case 2) 04:03:791 (243791|2,243791|3,244105|1,244105|2,244891|1,244891|2,245362|0,245362|1) - higher to low contrast, hence to the left
case 3) 04:06:304 (246304|1,246304|0,246618|2,246618|0,247404|1,247404|2,247875|1,247875|3) - the tone is slightly more ambiguous here, but the general direction is still higher - the magnitude of the force of direction is reduced, however, given how the even kicks are more spaced out
case 4) 04:18:870 (258870|0,258870|1,259184|1,259184|2,259969|1,259969|0,260440|1,260440|2) - the tone repeats itself, hence the kicks repeat themselves as well

this section somewhat borrows the ideas from the previous one regarding the snares, but fleshes it out even more meticulously
original section samples that were present beforehand will also be present in this section

from here on out i would be repeating myself a lot so i'll just provide an overview of what the section is doing

04:21:383 - 04:31:435
it's not too obvious but the general structure of the section repeats itself every 4 measures, with each successive one being more concentrated on the left (in terms of mental effort). vocal samples are also subtly used in this section, and it's built to be innocuous as well. not much else to say since most of the other specifics should be obvious at this point, but keep in mind the change in directionality of the chart right around here.
04:22:247 (262247|2,262325|2) - jacks in this section are already clearly indicated by the jarring change of pace at 04:20:781 -

04:31:435 - 04:40:231 -
the only stacks in this section are dedicated to the synth sound (which generally decreases in tonality) - hence the aforementioned allusion to right to left directionality. the patterning in this section are built to accent these stacks to make the synth sound more obvious to the player - this required me to break the chording rules though.
04:33:634 (273634|1) -
04:35:990 (275990|1) - difference in LN lengths for these two LNs boils down to how the second one actually seems to have two sounds rather than 1 long sound - to compensate for that i made the intervals between the LNs tighter
04:39:917 (279917|3,280074|3,280231|3) - LNs extend in length, corresponding to the stretching of the synths themselves
again, the remaining ideas are what are already in the chart itself

04:40:388 (280388|3,280388|2) - the LNs here are less in your facey because the section loses its background track in this part

04:41:173 - 04:51:383 -
revamped the logic here, the 1/6 LNs are the center-stage of the section, following the piano.
the 1/1 + 1/2 LN pairs 04:41:330 (281330|2,281802|0) - e.g. also follow the tonality of the section, going upwards and downwards/opening up as per the music. however, they never change their chording sequence [13][24] since those chords are meant to follow the bassy bass
the kicks here are [12]/[34] so they actually stand out amongst the crowd here - i think it's a much better alternative than to make those LN pairs [12]/[34] anyway.
subtler things include: 04:46:985 - the first two percussion hits __always__ goes to the left.
section is meant to be a warm up to the next larger "chorus" type part
04:50:126 (290126|0,290597|0,291069|0) - why does the LN fade out again then? cause the focus here is shifting to the viola thing sound, not the piano

04:51:383 - 05:01:121 -
might be the weakest part since it's a intermediary state, but there's progression here at least. the trills get longer in length through the section (and hence the anchors get longer as time progresses), specifically meant for the winding up to the next section.
there's also a slight hint of right to left directionality.

05:01:278 - 05:21:697 -
it's a little hard to break down this section, so here's how i layered it to begin:
1) the 1/4 LNs for the main synth first, they take precedence above all else. hence, they will not budge according to the patterning - this produces pretty interesting results actually
2) a residual, background synth that only really comes out at 05:04:734 (304734|3,304891|2,305048|1,305205|0), because that's where the main synth stops doing its thing. mainly, this background synth is layered with normal notes with PR, but it does not take precedence above 1).
3) the remaining space is left for percussion and hihat fill-ins. a lot of the time you might see that the patterns are left-biased - this effect is pretty much accidental, but it's very useful for me since i do want this part to represent the "anti"thesis of the actual chorus of the song. examples of such left handed patterning can be found in 05:04:812 (304812|0,304891|1,304969|0,305048|1) / 05:07:325 (307325|1,307404|0,307482|1,307561|0), which both occur in sections where there's hihats AND a decrease in the pitches of 1) or 2).

05:20:440 - 05:21:697 -
2) is finally able to breathe here, since i gave it a 1/6. this ties into the next section

05:21:697 - 05:31:592 -
the first section here uses the background BASS synth as the central theme. i wish to transit from the major sounding chorus into the minor, more dimished sounding ending and this is one of the steps in the process.
the anchoring in this section is strictly dedicated to the repetition of the bass synth only as such
05:31:592 - 05:40:467 -
the second section, a double bass seems to intrude in the bass line of the given synth - it's still there of course (and hence remnants of the first section still exist), but the emphasis is now given to that double bass - much strongly in fact, since i used 1/6 LNs to introduce them to the player.
this section is also much more rough around the edges, with more anchors and trills and stuff like that. most of the time they're built to accommodate for the LNs.
as for 05:40:388 (340388|2,340467|1,340859|1,340859|2), these are meant to represent the convergence of the two melody lines shown; with the bass synth one on the left (3] bridging itself into a 1/4 LN (which is in preparation of the next section which utilizes 1/4 LNs 05:41:802 - 05:43:058 - to represent the bass melody line), and the doublebass sounding thing on the right (2] that dies out into a normal note.
in the whole part here, the only doubles i gave were to the obvious bass kicks, and the more touchy 05:30:650 - toms. other indications of the transformation into the diminished section include the tom doubles 05:23:111 - which go from [34] to [24] to [13] to [12], and very roughly the hihats that repeat themsleves before the toms, 05:25:309 (325309|0,325388|1) which occupy at the very least the first 2 columns.

05:41:330 (341330|1,341330|2,341487|0,341645|3) -
missing 2nd column LN cause of the bridging of the doublebass (see above). LN ends die out from right to left.

05:41:802 - 06:01:906 -
so, this section is meant to be the theoretical inverse of [w].
a few hints:
the melody line is now noted with an LN
the bass line still retains the 1/4 length to contrast with the other notes
05:59:707 - these things are now inverted in order of length
chording is less imposing, but the underlying logic should be the opposite of most of the chart -
05:42:430 -
05:44:158 - are the only two strong percussion sounds, the second one being more airy - but it's represented as a closed chord as compared to the first one. it's also on the left to lend more bias to the left.
the section repeats itself 4 times which is nice, since it hammers home the point about something odd/out of place. unless you've been reading this then i should expect players to feel like this section is a little outside of the general gist of the chart itself - this kinda ties in with the small code i've given in the desc. of the chart + it's the feeling i get from the song anyway (comfortably odd, maybe?)

06:01:906 (361906|1) - ends on the second most pitchy bell sounds, meant to be somewhat erratic in nature yet still coherent to hear.

i think most of the chart is structured differently - but it's more nuanced to me and i think i did it
Mentholzzz
449 posts
Joined October 2015
Mentholzzz

The chart overall is great. I like it, but I have some question for it.
10074,-100,4,2,1,50,0,0
30179,-100,4,2,1,50,0,0
150728,-100,4,2,1,50,0,0
150885,-100,4,2,1,50,0,0
321697,-100,4,2,1,50,0,0
341802,-100,4,2,1,50,0,0
361828,-100,4,2,1,50,0,0
361985,-100,4,2,1,50,0,0
What's the point of those timing points ? They don't change hitsound volumes nor the slider velocity.
00:30:179 - Are you sure you want to make this part the hardest part of the map ? Those 3/8 jack and 1/4 jack in te same column is hard to hit, compare to other part of the map.
01:30:100 (90100|2) - Shouldn't this note snap to 1/6 like the one at 01:24:995 - ?
02:34:027 (154027|2,154498|1,158582|2,159053|1,159524|2) - I'm still not sure why you put this note there.
04:20:754 - I'd like to change this to one hand trill rather than jack. idk. The jack feels too much for this part imo.

Those are just opinion, feel free to reject.
Abraxos
855 posts
Joined October 2014
Topic Starter
Abraxos

Mentholzzz wrote:

10074,-100,4,2,1,50,0,0
30179,-100,4,2,1,50,0,0
150728,-100,4,2,1,50,0,0
150885,-100,4,2,1,50,0,0
321697,-100,4,2,1,50,0,0
341802,-100,4,2,1,50,0,0
361828,-100,4,2,1,50,0,0
361985,-100,4,2,1,50,0,0
What's the point of those timing points ? They don't change hitsound volumes nor the slider velocity.

derp i forgot to adjust the volume

00:30:179 - Are you sure you want to make this part the hardest part of the map ? Those 3/8 jack and 1/4 jack in te same column is hard to hit, compare to other part of the map.
there's not much i could do here for the 3/8s cause they're centered on the vocals which is on the third column; i moved the 1/4 jack at least

01:30:100 (90100|2) - Shouldn't this note snap to 1/6 like the one at 01:24:995 - ?
edited

02:34:027 (154027|2,154498|1,158582|2,159053|1,159524|2) - I'm still not sure why you put this note there.
the even synth sounds have an echo to them - they're not precisely 1/4s but it's approximate enough for me to put them as 1/4s

04:20:754 - I'd like to change this to one hand trill rather than jack. idk. The jack feels too much for this part imo.
it's supposed to be jarring ;)

Those are just opinion, feel free to reject.
thanks for looking through ow o
Abraxos
855 posts
Joined October 2014
Topic Starter
Abraxos
resident sleeper
BanchoBot
w00t p00t
34,830 posts
Here since the beginning
BanchoBot
This modding thread has been migrated to the new "modding discussions" system. Please make sure to re-post any existing (and unresolved) efforts to the new system as required.
Please sign in to reply.

New reply

0
30 / 55