oof

applied for my diff and amii too

alrighty, looks fine to me

minor hs consistency mod

[Tofu's Hard]

00:04:683 - Add W

00:08:554 - Add W

00:35:005 - Add W

00:35:328 - Add W and F

01:00:489 - Add W

01:25:005 - Add W

I will let achsan fix this, after that i will qualify.

Update:

- Minor HS problem on tofu's diff
- change diff name from Hard to Hyper which is i always use in my other qrispy joybox map :/ basically i forgot about this one until this almos get qualified x_x
- change Lyo's diff HP from 6.5 to 6. i think its more fit with the pattern

lets go

Let's get this rolling then.

gratz nak krispi

pros krispi

hi this isn't serious and doesn't warrant DQ or anything, i'm just interested in your reasoning




yeah idk

now im thinking how to reply all of them with my bad english skill ._."

give me at least 2 days to reply them bcz im too lazy, sorry :/

someone please help me with translate to indonesia AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

@maxus help this guy

also take your time i suppose, it's nothing so crucial that the entire thing is unplayable, it's just a few portions that i don't quite understand
(or maybe one of the bns can stand in i suppose, assuming you fully understand the map and the mapper's intentions)

mlm" lg kuker. buka trit orang, maybe bisa dibantu :v

Abraxos wrote:

kurang lebih gini

00:01:780 - 00:09:521 - it's a little odd to me that you followed the percussion here, it's probably the most basic thing you could've done. there's nothing inherently wrong with it, it's just surprising to me
// ini agak aneh buat doi dimana kamu mengikuti perkusi (kick) disini, sebenernya ini sesuatu yang sangat basic/dasar yang bisa lu kerjakan. disana tak ada kesalahan dengan inherently (gampangnya snap dah yg warna warni). hanya saja itu buat doi suprise. -w-

my issue comes with the next section though
// issunya doi datang dri mulai bagian ini

00:09:683 - 00:09:925 -
00:10:328 - 00:10:409 - 00:10:570 -
00:10:731 -
00:10:973 -

all these snare-sounding stuff are doubled, which would've been fine if not for the fact that
00:09:844 - 00:10:167 - 00:10:489 - 00:10:812 - these bass kicks have that bass line to them (i.e., there's an underlying "oopmh" or low-pitched hit if you want to call it that), which makes them stand out against those snares, even though they have a different quality of sound to them (with the snare sounds being weaker due to their lack of bass backing) // semua suara snare dibuat doble, dimana akan menjadi lebih baik 'jika tidak untuk kenyataannya' *gw rada ambigu disini wkwk* bahwa 00:09:844 - 00:10:167 - 00:10:489 - 00:10:812 -ini memiliki suara bass kick di bass line / garis bass untuk mereka *maksudnya suara basskicknya pas pada tempatnya* (yaitu disana ada suara layer / backsound "oopmh" or low-pitched (ketukan nada rendah/pelan) jika kamu ingin memanggilnya seperti itu), dimana membuat mereka *kick* lebih menonjol menentang suara snarenya. bahkan berpikir mereka memiliki perbedaan kualitas suara untuk ,ereka (dgn suara snare yang menjadi lebih lemah karena kekurangan bass backing (mksdnya suara background / layer bassnya) mereka

however, you seem to have represented both of them in the same way, so we have things like 00:10:328 (10328|3,10328|0,10409|1,10409|2,10489|0,10489|3,10570|1,10570|2) - that seem out of place in first play because of that difference in sound quality // Namun, km terlihat untuk menjelaskan keduanya dalam same way/jalan yg sama *intinya mksdnya ini suaranya kan beda. tp lu buat itu sama placingnya/penempatannya jadi awkward*, Jadi kita punya sesuatu seperti 00:10:328 (10328|3,10328|0,10409|1,10409|2,10489|0,10489|3,10570|1,10570|2) - dimana terlihat keluar dari tempat pertama kita mainkan karena keduanya memiliki perbedaan kualitas suara.*Intinya ga konsisten jadinya, part awal sama part slnjutnya ga cocok berasa out/keluar dari konsistensi*

to support this "out of placeness" even further, the prior section (00:01:780 - 00:09:521) purely consists of doubles to those bass kicks, which already sets up expectations that a double is equivalent in sound quality/strength as those bass kicks players hear. so when you introduce the next section (00:09:521 - onwards) where there's a less bass-y kick that is doubled it just kinda doesn't mesh well. again, these aren't DQable stuff, it's just odd design choices. // untuk membantu ini "keluar dari placeness" bahkan lebih lanjut, bagian prioritas (00:01:780 - 00:09:521) sangat konsisten dengan dobel note untuk basskick, yang mana sudah mengatur pengeculian bahwa sebuah double adalah ekulivalen (sebanding) dengan kualitas/kekuatan suara seperti bass kick yang didengar player. jadi ketika lu pengen bagian selanjutnya (00:09:521 - onwards)dimana disana terdapat sediki bass-y kick *yang udah dibuat* doble *sblmnya* itu membuat agak tak cocok. lagi, INI BUKAN DQable STUFF *bkn sesuatu penyebab DQ*]

these layering stuffs seem present throughout the map, so if you wanna be thorough you should look at every instance and see whether or not it's appropriate to you // hal hal tentang layering terlihat menjelaskan seluaruh map. jadi, jika lu pengen (menjadi) lebih teliti, lu sebaiknya melihat di semua contoh dan melihat apakah itu sesuai buat lu atau kagak :p

_____________________________________________________________________

this next one is much more important // ini hal lain yg sangat penting *katanya :p
00:15:005 (15005|2,15650|1) - i just don't see how these notes deserve to be even acknowledged in play - i mean, there isn't even an existing percussion line on those two notes, and there's no piano note there either. it only gets messier when you consider the actual existing percussion lines on 00:14:844 - 00:15:086 - 00:15:489 - 00:15:570 - 00:15:731 - 00:15:892 - so players are left with hearing these sounds in play and only hitting notes where sounds are objectively weaker. this issue is compounded further by previous sections too, since you've only really followed the piano and the percussion up till that point, setting up more expectations of notes=percussion/piano, not some light-ass woosh sound. as mentioned before though, it's just an odd design choice to me. // 00:15:005 (15005|2,15650|1) -si doi gak mudeng gimana itu note cocok/pantas/layak dipakek bahkan dengan pengatahuan yg rendah (copo, wkwkkw) dalam bermain. maksudnya, bahkan disana tidak exist/ada garis perkusion *kyak bass, kick dll* di dua note itu, dan disana jg ga ada note piano. itu cuman membuatnya lebih kacau ketika lu mempertimbangkan kenyataan, ada garis perkusi di 00:14:844 - 00:15:086 - 00:15:489 - 00:15:570 - 00:15:731 - 00:15:892 -. jadi player dapat langsung dengan mendengarkan suara itu dlm bermain dan hanya memencet/meng-hit note dimana suaranya secara obyektif lebih lemah. masalah ini jg menambah lanjutan dari bagian sblmnya jg. karna km cuman hanya mengikuti suara piano dan perkusi naik sampai poin/bagian itu, atur lebih bnyk note pengecualian =perkusi/piano, tidak beberapa suara seperti light-ass woosh sound *suara cahaya/wooshhh/fx*seperti yg sudah disebut sblmnya, itu hanya keanehan pemilihan desain bagi si doi

Jadi kesimpulan yg w dapet.

aaa sorry klo acak"an wkwkwk.
tanda "*" tu my comment.

Goodluck

Wow I'm late here.
It seems Amii Already translate it, albeit has some awkward interpretation, but i think should be enough to be understandable.

I will instead try to give my opinion on the perspective as the one that icon this map, so that it might be more understandable what the mapper intention actually is.

Abraxos wrote:

hi this isn't serious and doesn't warrant DQ or anything, i'm just interested in your reasoning

our destiny

00:01:780 - 00:09:521 - it's a little odd to me that you followed the percussion here, it's probably the most basic thing you could've done. there's nothing inherently wrong with it, it's just surprising to me

_____________________________________________________________________

my issue comes with the next section though

00:09:683 - 00:09:925 -
00:10:328 - 00:10:409 - 00:10:570 -
00:10:731 -
00:10:973 -

all these snare-sounding stuff are doubled, which would've been fine if not for the fact that
00:09:844 - 00:10:167 - 00:10:489 - 00:10:812 - these bass kicks have that bass line to them (i.e., there's an underlying "oopmh" or low-pitched hit if you want to call it that), which makes them stand out against those snares

however, you seem to have represented both of them in the same way, so we have things like 00:10:328 (10328|3,10328|0,10409|1,10409|2,10489|0,10489|3,10570|1,10570|2) - that seem out of place in first play because of that difference in sound quality

to support this "out of placeness" even further, the prior section (00:01:780 - 00:09:521) purely consists of doubles to those bass kicks, which already sets up expectations that a double is equivalent in sound quality/strength as those bass kicks players hear. so when you introduce the next section (00:09:521 - onwards) where there's a less bass-y kick that is doubled it just kinda doesn't mesh well. again, these aren't DQable stuff, it's just odd design choices.

these layering stuffs seem present throughout the map, so if you wanna be thorough you should look at every instance and see whether or not it's appropriate to you

The first point i assume he just tried to make the intro much simpler to accentuate the drum. Combine it with the piano is also doable, but that means the intro will be more or less the same as other GD'er, which the mapper may try to avoid and what decide him to took other approaches.

For the second Point, The main question in the simplified way is that "why there's 2 different sound that got the same amount of chord happened there?"
Without trying to sound rude (I apologize if i did) , the mapper try to differentiate the amount of chord for each respective sound will either create another inconsistency, or forcing the pattern that unfit the mood here, How is that even happening?

Let's take a look at the jumptrill at 00:10:328 (10328|3,10328|0,10409|1,10409|2,10489|0,10489|3,10570|1,10570|2) - , Assuming that mapper need to differentiate the sound without forcing the jack, it means he has to do triple chord for the louder snare, and single note for the weaker kick. it means for consistency he has to set up the other note such as 00:09:844 (9844|1,9844|0,9925|2,9925|3) - with the same amount of notes as i told earlier, which not only makes the kick too underwhelming and kind of inconsistent with the intro part, but the amount of notes differences between 2 corresponding sound will be too big when we consider that their sound differences aren't that major to begin with.

How about if louder snare just 2 notes while the kick is 1 note? that design i assume will be much weirder when we consider the section here has much stronger compared with the upcoming jumpstream at 00:11:134 -

How about if the louder snares back to 3 notes and the kick are 2 notes? that should creates obvious jack which we want to avoid considering it's only an opening act.

Those 3 alternative I mentioned before in my opinion will be much too forcing to be implemented just for the sake of chord differentiation, which i believe will hurting more than as a solution. The more flexible solution is the current implementation within the current map, which is to make both sound becoming double notes. Because not only it makes the map flow more linear without forcing towards the current structure, but both sound has quite similar hardness which in an extent still makes sense to be put within the same amount of chord.

Abraxos wrote:

this next one is much more important
00:15:005 (15005|2,15650|1) - i just don't see how these notes deserve to be even acknowledged in play - i mean, there isn't even an existing percussion line on those two notes, and there's no piano note there either. it only gets messier when you consider the actual existing percussion lines on 00:14:844 - 00:15:086 - 00:15:489 - 00:15:570 - 00:15:731 - 00:15:892 - so players are left with hearing these sounds in play and only hitting notes where sounds are objectively weaker. this issue is compounded further by previous sections too, since you've only really followed the piano and the percussion up till that point, setting up more expectations of notes=percussion/piano, not some light-ass woosh sound. as mentioned before though, it's just an odd design choice to me.[/notice]

yeah idk

Although not directly related, but I ask the mapper about things around this area too, so i think it kinda answer about mapping the hithat. and his answer more or less like this:

"Yeah, I want to focus more on the piano here, I want to give break from previous Jumpstream at 00:11:134 - , Even if you argue it's highest difficulty, every map must have a break at the very least, I don't want to force player have to follow all the sound existing within the song. So i decide to follow hithat to prevent it becoming too empty while still telling what i intend to focusing (the piano)"

While I was also unconvinced earlier, I kinda decided to just let it go because of how i come upon a realization that the hithat helps emphasizing how the mapper intend to accenting the piano here. If the mapper decide to map the kick instead, then it will take the original emphasis towards the piano, which is already completely gone from the mapper's intention. because kick isn't viable, so mapping the other instrument is the solution for this, which is the hat. I know mapping kick might be more of the common sense for most people, but i kind of respect this kind of approach that takes thing differently and yet still logical when i tried to take the perception into different perspective.

-----

So yeah, this is my opinion as a BN, it's still up to the mapper on what he wanna do.

appreciate amiichi translating the message and maxus stepping in to represent

i'm in blue
he quoted me on the points in order so i'll just cut those out for easier reading

Maxus wrote:

The first point i assume he just tried to make the intro much simpler to accentuate the drum. Combine it with the piano is also doable, but that means the intro will be more or less the same as other GD'er, which the mapper may try to avoid and what decide him to took other approaches.

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

Maxus wrote:

For the second Point, The main question in the simplified way is that "why there's 2 different sound that got the same amount of chord happened there?"
Without trying to sound rude (I apologize if i did) , the mapper try to differentiate the amount of chord for each respective sound will either create another inconsistency, or forcing the pattern that unfit the mood here, How is that even happening?

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)

Maxus wrote:

Let's take a look at the jumptrill at 00:10:328 (10328|3,10328|0,10409|1,10409|2,10489|0,10489|3,10570|1,10570|2) - , {1} Assuming that mapper need to differentiate the sound without forcing the jack, it means he has to do triple chord for the louder snare, and single note for the weaker kick. it means for consistency he has to set up the other note such as 00:09:844 (9844|1,9844|0,9925|2,9925|3) - with the same amount of notes as i told earlier, which not only makes the kick too underwhelming and kind of inconsistent with the intro part, but the amount of notes differences between 2 corresponding sound will be too big when we consider that their sound differences aren't that major to begin with.

{2} How about if louder snare just 2 notes while the kick is 1 note? that design i assume will be much weirder when we consider the section here has much stronger compared with the upcoming jumpstream at 00:11:134 -

{3} How about if the louder snares back to 3 notes and the kick are 2 notes? that should creates obvious jack which we want to avoid considering it's only an opening act.

Those 3 alternative I mentioned before in my opinion will be much too forcing to be implemented just for the sake of chord differentiation, which i believe will hurting more than as a solution. The more flexible solution is the current implementation within the current map, which is to make both sound becoming double notes. Because not only it makes the map flow more linear without forcing towards the current structure, but both sound has quite similar hardness which in an extent still makes sense to be put within the same amount of chord.

i added reference notes for my own, well, reference.

satisficing 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

Maxus wrote:

Although not directly related, but I ask the mapper about things around this area too, so i think it kinda answer about mapping the hithat. and his answer more or less like this:

"Yeah, I want to focus more on the piano here, I want to give break from previous Jumpstream at 00:11:134 - , Even if you argue it's highest difficulty, every map must have a break at the very least, I don't want to force player have to follow all the sound existing within the song. So i decide to follow hithat to prevent it becoming too empty while still telling what i intend to focusing (the piano)"

While I was also unconvinced earlier, I kinda decided to just let it go because of how i come upon a realization that the hithat helps emphasizing how the mapper intend to accenting the piano here. If the mapper decide to map the kick instead, then it will take the original emphasis towards the piano, which is already completely gone from the mapper's intention. because kick isn't viable, so mapping the other instrument is the solution for this, which is the hat. I know mapping kick might be more of the common sense for most people, but i kind of respect this kind of approach that takes thing differently and yet still logical when i tried to take the perception into different perspective.

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 2 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 would be the jump-hand stream 00:16:134 to 00:17:263) 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.

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.

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.

EDIT: fixed a few facts, also 00:16:215 - this note isn't present in all the other diffs btw

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.

all is well except

Maxus wrote:

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.

kinda weird explanation, i mean i'm not sure if i would respect people for merely doing something differently and still "making it work". again, it's fine if you don't wanna, i'm just saying it'd be more interesting if you did something like column allocation for the percussion and piano beats since they give the variation in the actual song at that point in time

but in general, i guess i'm fine with his response, as post-hoc as his explanations may seem.

edit: thank you for coming in to talk about it though, it's much appreciated.

completely separate thing from above xd

yes i have questions
top diff thing

00:09:844 -> - 00:12:102 (12102|3) -
ok so i think you're in favor of percussion mapping. majorly. however, why is there no percussion HS being attached as well here?
idk its just weird to leave out all those kicks by only a tiny bell-like sounds. just doesnt go well and kinda detach the mapping with the situated noise

00:16:134 (16134|3) - same situation here

01:10:812 - this one even more obvious

01:32:747 (92747|1) - this one is justified because piano is more dense and it will be ruined if theres an overwhelming percussion HS here. i can leave that.
just those three that left me thinking

------------------------------------

Destiny as reference
[Amii]

00:04:683 (4683|2) - 00:08:554 (8554|1) - missing W

00:38:957 (38957|2) - you're not doubling this? its kinda similar to scheme on - 00:38:231 (38231|0,38231|3,38312|2,38312|1) -

00:56:376 (56376|2) - likewise

[Tofu]

00:04:683 (4683|2) - why is there an additional C here?

This is highly unlikely to be intended because afaik, there was a HS diff here so i assume all diff were hitsounded by achsan and he try to consistently do it but still left some of it apparently
---------------------------------

probably important to note. i barely could notice the drum-hitwhistle in 100%fx. it seems to be in the grey area of "blended too much". may need a proper judgement from qat because i might be wrong xd

cheers

woosh, seems i'm late to follow the discussion.
really appreciate amii for translate it to me. but i guess maxus already answer all of question which is i believe 90% correct, really thanks to him for helping me. thats mean a lot. if you (maybe) ask me again (in future), i maybe just answer it with "because bla bla bla bla" or w/e which is really simple answer or maybe have no sense for you, so prefer to maxus reasoning which is "into-the-detail" of the reason itself.

so, im gonna end discussion in here. thanks for asking abra!! also exavid when


also for rivals, can we just discuss it on IRC? i prefer on it because my lack of english skill, so you know why xD

and also i'm 15 today, hbd for myself uwu

Rivals_7 wrote:

completely separate thing from above xd

yes i have questions
top diff thing

00:09:844 -> - 00:12:102 (12102|3) -
ok so i think you're in favor of percussion mapping. majorly. however, why is there no percussion HS being attached as well here?
idk its just weird to leave out all those kicks by only a tiny bell-like sounds. just doesnt go well and kinda detach the mapping with the situated noise

i have try this 6 month ago, and while playing, the hitsound feels too noisy for me, so i prefer to do somehing like kick-med clap-kick-snare-something something

00:16:134 (16134|3) - same situation here

nah, same here as well

01:10:812 - this one even more obvious

nah, too much loud if i put more hitsound in every note there, so im just put W+F there, looks fine for me

01:32:747 (92747|1) - this one is justified because piano is more dense and it will be ruined if theres an overwhelming percussion HS here. i can leave that.
just those three that left me thinking

o wait, i dont get it :/

------------------------------------

Destiny as reference
[Amii]

00:04:683 (4683|2) - 00:08:554 (8554|1) - missing W oof wooot, why no W there aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

00:38:957 (38957|2) - you're not doubling this? its kinda similar to scheme on - 00:38:231 (38231|0,38231|3,38312|2,38312|1) - hmm, the first one, actually have the strong kick sound, but after that, 00:38:957 - have weaker than before, so 1 is enough

00:56:376 (56376|2) - likewise seems the pattern like triple-single-single-single-double-single here, like the others, since that was in blue tick, that was fine for keeping it as 1 note


[Tofu]

00:04:683 (4683|2) - why is there an additional C here? oof again? aazzzz

This is highly unlikely to be intended because afaik, there was a HS diff here so i assume all diff were hitsounded by achsan and he try to consistently do it but still left some of it apparently some of them probably got delete because the GD'er do some changing in their map, and im forgot to recheck it again
---------------------------------

probably important to note. i barely could notice the drum-hitwhistle in 100%fx. it seems to be in the grey area of "blended too much". may need a proper judgement from qat because i might be wrong xd

cheers

well, seems need to DQ here, my bad

edit: done and update for hitsound

Happy birthday Achsan o/
I sincerely hope this discussion can end soon and we can get this map ready. Sorry that I can't help because I am a bit busy these days.

tfw still can't pronounce the song title

Achsan reported the map themselves, so I guess this is a request for a DQ from the looks of it.

So uh... here ya go and best of luck! I'll be floating about if there's any urgent questions that need asking... after I go to sleep cus it's 4:30am here lol

Also just as a side note, there has to be some tags around to put in the map I guess? and where's the birthday cake

Tofu1222 wrote:

Happy birthday Achsan o/
I sincerely hope this discussion can end soon and we can get this map ready. Sorry that I can't help because I am a bit busy these days.

thank you tofu <3

Asherz007 wrote:

tfw still can't pronounce the song title should be pronounce like "nifelheimer' lol

Achsan reported the map themselves, so I guess this is a request for a DQ from the looks of it.

So uh... here ya go and best of luck! I'll be floating about if there's any urgent questions that need asking... after I go to sleep cus it's 4:30am here lol

Also just as a side note, there has to be some tags around to put in the map I guess? i guess there's no more tags should be put here and where's the birthday cake

lololololol

thanks ash!!
err, since i only change the hitsound here, not change anything in map, so that should be i can re-quali it without bubble eh? cuz maxus say so

Me pronouncing the title be like "niflehflefle"

Finally read through the thread, didn't last time and I should have done oops

Ok, so rivals also pointed out that the drum-hitwhistle might be a little too quiet, which it is... by a lot. I mean seriously. A. LOT. lol tbh, the sample is a little meh so I'm wondering whether you can find something better rather than just increasing the volume like everybody normally does. (Besides I feel like the current soft-hitclap works slightly better here). Other hitsounds seem to be ok regarding volume.

I am also baffled by the lack of the snare use in the fills since you follow them so prominently. Obviously, they don't need to be ear-piercingly loud, but since they are being followed in some of the difficulties, I think it would be better to put them in. (Likely going to need a new sample here since none of the current ones quite fit also I'm too lazy to find one at the moment so sorry)

Also just quickly whizzing through your diff achsan with a testplay and 00:56:538 (56538|2,56618|3,56699|2,56779|3,56860|2,56941|3,57021|2,57102|3,57183|2,57263|3,57344|2,57425|3) is a long OH trill eeeeeeeeeee there's no trilly sound within the audio so this really doesn't make any sense to me.

I promised a bazillion other people I'd mod their maps so gotta rush things slightly for now, but I'm available all week so just spam me with PMs n stuff if you need help or want me to double check stuff.

tfw i have no more motivation to rank a map ;w;

so, maybe i'm gonna find the new one of drum-hitwhistle here, because soft-hitclap doesnt really work well with the sound of the song
o wait, gonna use this one https://puu.sh/ADEW8/edc0279987.wav looks work for me.

also for 00:56:538 (56538|2,56618|3,56699|2,56779|3,56860|2,56941|3,57021|2,57102|3,57183|2,57263|3,57344|2,57425|3) - WHY IM NOT NOTICE THIS AASBAHIVBAIOJBWOIUAVBHABVIUVBHAOIBOI

yeah gonna re-arrange it something like https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/11156985

thanks ash, but im not really interested to do double check it, because maybe you not really motivated or im gonna re-arrange everything again on the map, but well, the current one right now is enough for me. it enough for hit the ranked section.

have a nice day!

im gonna ask the BN for re-bub and re-quali again since i was change something on the map ;w;

Btw, since you were using Beginner as your previous Qrispy Joybox map, would you like to rename Ly0's Easy to Ly0's Beginner?

AchsanLovers wrote:

tfw i have no more motivation to rank a map ;w;

Don't ask BN to icon map in the first place then if you're not interested.

Anyway, ask error to bubble this map, i will requalify afterwards.

Tofu1222 wrote:

Btw, since you were using Beginner as your previous Qrispy Joybox map, would you like to rename Ly0's Easy to Ly0's Beginner?

you mean my Twinkle Wonderland? well, actually use beginner here because the game (reflec beat) so i use beginner. but this one is jubeat, and i guess easy is the cool one.

Maxus wrote:

AchsanLovers wrote:

tfw i have no more motivation to rank a map ;w;

Don't ask BN to icon map in the first place then if you're not interested.

Anyway, ask error to bubble this map, i will requalify afterwards.

yeah gonna stop to rank stuff after rank 5 qrispy map tbh :/ and i already ask error, and he's gonna hit it soon. makasih udh pengertian bang :')

should be good then

let's go.

Tbh, I still think the hitsounds are way too quiet to be heard. The hitnormal's fine, I have little trouble hearing that, but the default 40% vol in the chart makes it really difficult to hear anything aside from the hitnormal over the music. I think 50% would be a little better, but that's more of a bandaid fix than anything.

[Our Destiny]
00:38:150 - Every piano trill in the song has been mapped so far in this section, so I feel like it's a bit jarring to suddenly not have that and shift all of the focus into the percussion; even more so when you go back to mapping the trills again at 00:39:441 - . I would add the trill here for consistency, like this https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/11192065

00:39:441 (39441|1,39602|1,39763|1) - More of a nitpick than anything, but this left hand heavy pattern kind of takes away from the smooth flow that's utilized in this difficulty without much to justify it (like a sudden break in the music or change in style). I think it'd be better to have it flow similarly to the 1/4 before it for consistency. You could also think of it to do with pitch as well by having all the notes moving from right -> left to represent the descending pitch. Possible idea could be like so https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/11192073

00:47:586 - 00:48:876 - Not sure if this was intended, but there's a lot more strain on the right hand than the left since it has all the moving notes (consecutive 1/4 notes as opposed to 1/1 chords with rest time between). Might help to juggle the hand balance between the right and left hand instead. So basically, you could keep 00:47:586 - the way it is now with its emphasis on the right hand, and then have 00:48:876 - be emphasized on the left hand kind of like this https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/11192090


That's really all I have to say about this, other diffs were good =w=

50% are way too loud, i dont even know what that make so quiet to heard (40% vol). so im gonna keep it

[Our Destiny]
00:38:150 - im going to keep this one, its still acceptable for me. really, its not really hearable with PR 100% so i prefer to change it with focus to percusion and start again from 00:39:199 - to focus to piano. should be nothing wrong =w=

00:39:441 -

this left hand heavy pattern kind of takes away from the smooth flow that's utilized in this difficulty without much to justify it

not really, we have 00:39:521 (39521|3,39521|2) - as rebalance for right hand, so i dont think so.

You could also think of it to do with pitch as well by having all the notes moving from right -> left to represent the descending pitch

tbh, never thinking to mapping something with following the pitch of the sound, so idk.

00:48:876 - eeeeeh? even so, for its still balance well. not really following a same concept as 00:46:296 - but as long as it still balance and playable, there's should be nothing wrong.

yeah, im not going to change anything with the map anymore, everything is good for me. thanks for feedback prot~!

You forgot that even though nothing's perfect, you should try your best to achieve perfection. If there's room for improvement, why not?

Edit: I'll take a closer look at the map later