To be quite honest with you I don't think what you're "suggesting" is even feasible to the map and the way it's structured. You actually didn't give me any suggestions at all, you just pointed out everything you thought was wrong and left it there. Your "mod" is largely useless to me for that reason. What I think you want me to do is:
Voli wrote:The implementation of the spacing concept on the top diff can use a lot of work imo
General spacing concerns / lack of contrast
I feel like the spacing concept of this map wasn't thought out thoroughly enough. Considering the high-bpm nature of the song, note-to-object jumps should be mapped with a lot of care because they can very easily disrupt the movement in your patterns and generally feel very clunky.
An example of this is just when the map starts out at 00:01:957 (2,1) - . While 00:02:061 (1) - is indeed a high pitched sound and could be emphasized over the rest of the pattern, the angle and immense amount of spacing (for this bpm) just make the pattern feel overspaced in its entirety. What doesn't help is that the player has to make yet another jumpy movement towards 00:02:165 (2) - with a very sharp/harsh angle, while the pitch only lowers here.
Another example would be 00:05:395 (1,2,3,4,5) -. The spacing is the same over the entire pattern making the entire thing feel clunky and lacking in contrast. The sounds in the music aren't properly distinguished because you use the same huge spacing everywhere. Patterns with similar issues include:
- 00:33:728 (1,2,3,4) - spacing is monotonous while the music clearly indicates a different pitch on every note (down>up)
- 00:39:179 - ^
- 00:40:603 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2) - spacing gets larger every time but the actual sound that differentiates from the rest (00:40:811 (3) - ) isn't expressed in any way
- 00:52:686 (1,2,3,4,5) - vs 00:53:936 (3,4) - why do these patterns have the same spacing? Also 00:54:457 (2,3,1) - isn't really a good idea since the player has to make a VERY jerky right/left movement when nothing in the music supports this (as the melodic sound actually fades here)
- 01:42:061 (2,3,4,5) - same issue again, monotonous spacing even though the pitch ups?
- 01:50:082 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - ^
- 01:52:061 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - not only does this completely ignore any spacing concept that would relate to the music before in favor of some wide angled symmetric pattern, the transition to 01:52:895 (1,2,3,4) - also feels super clunky because the song's bpm wasn't taken into account while creating this pattern
- There are a lot of other examples of patterns with similar issues throughout the map.
Another reason I feel the spacing concept wasn't thought through enough is the amount of spacing you use on the ''transitioning'' notes (e.g. 00:01:957 (2) - 00:05:915 (4) - 00:12:582 (5) - ) is consistently high enough that they feel like jumps on their own considering the bpm. Some more extreme examples of this are 00:23:415 (4) - 00:29:249 (5) - 00:49:353 (2) - and a lot of others throughout the latter part of the map. These notes often don't really ''belong'' to any special sound in the music and their general purpose is keeping the rhythm natural and constant. However, the way you placed these combined with the song's bpm makes them stand out in an uncanny way contributing to my problem with the spacing concept.
Lastly, patterns like 00:52:686 (1,2,3,4,5,6) -, 01:16:228 (4,5,6,7) - and, as i said before, 01:52:895 (1,2,3,4) - feel too bluntly executed. The harshness of these angles is immensely contrasting with the slider patterns surrounding them.
tl;dr - I feel you should respect the song's extremely fast nature a lot more when creating patterns with super sharp angles/high spacing. As a result, I deem the difficulty unsatisfactory as of now.
If you wanna discuss, feel free to pm in game too of course.
- Lower spacing of all the "transition notes" despite several of them having sounds and most of them follow the pitch even the first one you mentioned has lower spacing on 2 than 1 yet for some reason you ignore that aspect. Also the sharp angles are all intentional since I'm introducing them early, it's called "concept introduction" and that is why there are sharp angles here. If I lowered them to be like https://i.imgur.com/HUN4R04.png for 00:05:395 (1,2,3,4,5) - or https://i.imgur.com/mwQ6j6T.jpg for 01:30:811 (1,2,3,4,5) - not only would it not represent the intensity but it would have a very noticeable drop in pacing that I feel is completely unjustified considering the intensity of the song. That said, I lowered some of the spacing of transition notes that seemed a little too over-the-top while still making them play acceptably.
- Vary spacing on streams that consist of 4 notes with similar intensity based on the individual pitches. That would look and play horribly and not even be consistent with the other patterns I used for the piano in every other instance that was increased/decreased in spacing OVERALL to account for differences in pitches eg 00:33:728 (1,2,3,4,1) - is staying relatively mid intensity 00:38:728 (1,2,3,4,1) - is higher intensity so it's obviously spaced more than 00:03:728 (1,2,3,4) - etc and for what you want me to do: https://i.imgur.com/baNCoIu.png 00:10:395 (1,2,3,4) - and https://i.imgur.com/n9ANbRE.png for 00:12:061 (1,2,3,4) - etc etc like this really doesn't matter to me, no player will really care about the intricacies of each individual piano pitch at this bpm they will more rather look at the overall intensity of the piano and relate that to the intensity of the map in that moment which is exactly what I'm doing. 00:33:728 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5) - the spacing of the star is fairly uniform so I can contrast that with 00:34:457 (3,4,5,1) - which is much higher intensity relative to the star of which is mapped to relatively stagnant piano.
- 01:14:561 (2,3,4,5) - These have to go, because for some reason they contrast too much when I used patterns like this everywhere and contrast here is the whole point of using them. Spacing is even relative to pitch as seen with 01:16:228 (4,5,6,7) - 01:17:270 (1,2,3,4) - etc etc, there are sharp angles on transition notes like 01:30:811 (1,2,3) - because there is a vocal on the 2 and a triple would be underselling the overall intensity of the song here and be a noticeable pacing drop for stronger sounds. 01:32:478 (1,2,3,4) - sharp angles 01:35:082 (2,3,4,5,1,2,3) - sharp angles etc etc etc it's all structured to be this way because if they weren't sharp angles and all flowy it wouldn't represent the intensity at all and the pacing would be so low and honestly boring. They've been introduced from the start of the map and have been used in moderation to emphasize specific points of the song of which I can list you every single one (I give examples at the end) and they work as intended and play perfectly fine. I can understand if you think they're overspaced but consider the whole map before picking at the individual patterns, there is a reason for the spacing I used and that is because if they were any lower spaced you'd have too much contrast in movement and end up emphasizing sounds that don't deserve it - thus I opted to keep spacing and flow fairly uniform and change them when there are differences in sound examples being 01:52:061 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - which plays absolutely fine by the way - nobody's ever complained about this. It has circular movement leading into intuitive sharp angle movement, so there's really no problem with how it plays. Even at this bpm. The spacing is uniform until 01:52:895 (1,2,3,4) - where the song noticeably spikes in intensity just like I mapped it to. I made some slight adjustments to the emphasis but the sharp angles stay, I won't change those.
- 00:40:603 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - For some reason don't emphasize the last note despite triples fundamentally being used to do exactly that, and again I'm not going for the individual sounds I'm going for the overall volume which if you notice, increases.
Overall I feel like you didn't really consider the context of the whole map and the entire idea I was going for and instead focused on the little itty bitty details that at this bpm nobody will care about. Your claims that I didn't think this diff out are honestly insulting to me because the entire reason I mapped this was to make a more playable version of Shiirn's (no offense Shiirn) and to fulfill one of the goals I had when starting to learn to map. Also a lot of the sharper angle stuff plays better than anything I did trying to apply your points and that proves already I considered the bpm and all of the flow usage before applying it structurally throughout the whole map. So no, Voli, I have put thought into my map. You didn't even give me any suggestions or anything to work off of - no ultimatum, no "goal" for the map to work towards to remove your veto. You basically came in, said "this, this, this, this is bad" then vetoed. While I don't dislike the veto system, when it's used like this it really looks stupid.
At this bpm prioritizing playability is key and if I have to make some sacrifices to song expression like not mapping every single piano pitch to it's individual spacing then fuck it I will.
EDIT: I adjusted some of the transition notes I found that were a bit overdone so hopefully that's something.
EDIT 2: Reworded the last bit cuz I wrote this at like 4am and I missed things:
- I did some adjustments overall to emphasis so check that if you can, most notably during the first kiai and 00:46:645
- I lowered spacing on 01:50:082 (1,2,3,1,2,3,4) - as you suggested
There, things. I had to guess most of what you wanted - obviously - but hopefully this is at least somewhat more acceptable to you.