Abraxos wrote:
again, it's not earth-shattering news, but i would've appreciated it better if that section had at least some form of acknowledgement towards the piano introduction - i mean, the bulk of the map has patterns that are exclusively dedicated towards piano stuff (e.g., 00:41:457 onwards, 01:24:683 these trill piano things that are present throughout the map, etc. - the thing to note is that saliency is taken with regards to the context of the map, i.e. if the general layout of the song is (bass-kick-bass-kick/double-single-double-triple-double...) then any variation from that sound would be salient/noticeably different)
there's no need for him to explicitly combine both the percussion and the piano as well - to me at least, the piano line in this section is more salient that the rest of the sounds, and that saliency kinda fits in with the theme of the map anyway (refer to e.gs. above), so there's no harm in just emphasizing on that just as a sort of primer for the player as to what they can expect to see in the chart. besides, it seems to me that following the piano would give more variation in patterning than the current structure of the chart anyway : P
Yeah I understand the point, I just don't really push this too hard because one point valid doesn't reduce the validity of other perspective as well. Especially when it's only a very beginning part of the song, and the logic behind the layering choices is not dissonant with how the start of the song works, especially when we can see the mapper might want to just take things more slowly instead of suddenly 1/3 piano all the way through. Also he wants to push different approach from what the GD'ers already did multiple times already while still being makes sense, which i do respect from him.
Abraxos wrote:
it's a little sad if anything that remotely resembles an inquiry into the discussion raised is seen as a personal attack but this game is pretty hot-buttoned when it comes to literally anything (this is more of a quip regarding the culture around here, don't mind me; if anything i'm happy that people bothered to respond civilly)
I know you want to say it's more of the culture of the community , but i can't help but feel that i'm being told that I said your suggestion as a personal attack, please refrain to do so because i'm not at all (i'm quite sure i keep the discussion calm and collected). All I wanna say is the reason why from my perspective your suggestion won't work with the map, doesn't mean i am hot buttoned and just take things as a personal attack.
Abraxos wrote:
i added reference notes for my own, well, reference.
satificing won't cut it, unfortunately. you seem to agree with me on the point about how the two sounds are fundamentally different in quality, yet you raised points about how trying to indicate that difference doesn't seem to work. i guess it would be fine if you rationalized the incongruence by deadlocking the possible solutions, but that only pushes back my concerns with the layering to the global layering of the chart:
{1} : a jack would be too out of place, it'd be silly if the mapper considered this
{2} : then my question would translate to "why would the upcoming jumpstream feature doubles on 00:11:296 (11296|1,11296|3,11618|0,11618|2) - and not on 00:11:215 (11215|2,11376|0,11538|1)? you certainly can't argue the point about different impact, since the map has already told me that 00:10:570 - should be the same in intensity as 00:10:489"
{3} : then my question would translate to "aren't triples supposed to be on either crashes (like 00:08:231) or on every downbeat (like 00:06:941)? why then does the following jumpstream feature a triple on 00:11:779? you can't say that it's for the louder, airier kick sound, since 00:09:199 - 00:07:263 - etc., aren't tripled and triples are meant to follow the "every downbeat" rule."
in essence, the map is just a bit janky here and there - which is fine i guess, but like idk
I will try to reply from second point.
{2} It's about different section, not impact. What does it mean?
To analyze it more deeply, let's divide each section from beginning to 12s into 3 section. section 1 = 00:01:780 - until 00:09:521 - , section 2 = 00:09:683 - until 00:11:134 - , section 3 is jumpstream section at 00:11:134 - until 00:12:102 -
in section 1, you notice that the overall pattern are less dense, but featuring mixed of the triple chord aside from double chord.
in section 2, you notice the overall pattern are much denser, but there's only double chord with triple dissapearing out of sight.
in section 3, you notice it's even more denser pattern by featuring constant 1/4 drum, but at this point, the single note are appearing much more commonly while other chord only appears at 1/2 basis.
tl;dr , the section gradually decrease in chord density but more dense in overall patterning (starting from 3 and 2 chord, later consistent 2 chord, and last is single note with chord appears at 1/2 basis), From here i can see myself the consistency of the structure mappers try to intended here. it's not inconsistent but actually as overall pattern combined they do makes sense.
From what i capture, it seems you prefer this as the solution, but once again it would still be the same inconsistent thing you addressed which that 00:10:489 - and 00:11:296 - having same amount of note albeit has different sound if this one get applied. So when considering that factor, the current one in terms of fluency and overall congruency between each section still fits more.
{3}Try to look at the hitsound there. the mapper marked that with "C" Hitsound, and when you look at the section 1, the rule still applied in section 1 which all C get triple notes. you might wanna argue why at 00:10:489 - it's still double albeit it's C, i will answer it's because it will forced the minijack which is undesirable.
Abraxos wrote:
a few caveats:
1) why would mapping another sound in a separate, distinct section that has a clear difference in impact and overall quality of sound detract from the original intent of the LNs? I don't think people have that bad of a memory that they instantly just forget the schemas you've set up beforehand even though you've clearly layered the piano for the previous 5-10 seconds.
2) if you want to argue the detraction in a case where both piano and percussion elements hold similar intensities, then that's fine - but can you really argue that that's the case in this section? I feel like the song builds up the entry into the mini-climax of this part (which I remember was the jumptrill, I'm outside right now) by sprinkling in these percussion elements as a way to signal to the listener that "hey, the song is changing here, listen closer". By ignoring the percussion of the song at this particular point you've effectively removed the (assumed) intent of the song at this section, which was the build into the mini-climax.
1) The schemes was to having support the piano instead of try to take that main role and just get rid of the piano completely with the drum. in actual play the low snare really combine well with the piano as the foundation towards the next step. People try to mapping other instrument to support their current structure and emphasis isn't unheard of as far as i know.
2) At the same time the piano at 00:14:683 (14683|1,15328|2) - is still the same as the piano at 00:12:102 (12102|0,12747|2,13392|3,14038|0) - , If thinking from this perspective, the only condition when piano suddenly appear at an inconsistent pace is at the jumpstream section in 00:16:134 - , that's why the mapper keep patiently focusing the piano that appear at the consistent 2/1 pace, until the moment piano went abruptly and then come back focusing at the jumpstream because map piano again will be messy. this perspective try to be calm instead of rushing "oh there's percussion, let's map it immediately" , as i said, mapper takes beginning section patiently.
Abraxos wrote:
Certainly the value-signaling for the charter should hold less precedence over the actual validity of the charting with regards to the song - it's a little weird to see why people would make the case about respecting "viewpoints" in modding if we're here to find what's the best "viewpoint"/methodology/whatever. People aren't that infallible, you know.
I never take things as the best viewpoint though as we are in the field where 90% of the things are too subjective (if something is objective, it will be in the RC anyway, the fact it's not means that it isn't). Mapping is just too vast to actually do that in an often basis.
Abraxos wrote:
So yeah. The ranking criteria and the culture of just enough is OK I guess, but I wonder how long people can maintain their own dissonance, especially when the push for "better charts" is so ingrained in the current charting meta.
Once again, please refrain from indirectly display the direct dissatisfaction of the non-accepted suggestion, saying other people only want enough chart and not want to be better cause they have another reason to keep theirs will only reduce your leverage in front of people. If we push too hard on what envision we believe is better it only leads to narrow viewpoint and the unwanted outcomes especially in something where the perception is too vast like this. I hope it doesn't happened and mutual understanding will be formed more, so i hope we can keep the civilness here.
-----------
Since the mapper seems to ald know the rough idea, will try to see his reply too.