1. osu! forums
  2. Beatmaps
  3. Beatmap Graveyard
show more
posted

ProfessionalBox wrote:

dq this early just makes me feel like the next time this gets qualified there will be more mods that would have come in now because people only wake up to mod when the map gets qualified thats why I was hoping it would be qualified for atleast until friday when I start to fix... whatever I guess.
:( i feel bad for u probox i love u sm
posted
if alien was rank y not this 1 2


Yo Probox man, did you even check these things ^ ?
posted
It seems like there was a bit of concern on the W1nber sliders, let me just clear up why I considered them fine.


Slider tails only consider your position 36ms before the end of the slider, the rest of the tail doesn't matter.

Take 03:18:618 (1) - as an example, its tail is on 03:18:664.
664 - 618 = 46, which is how many ms the slider is.

36 / 46 = 78%, inverse it to 22%

This means you only need to hit 22% of the slider to SS it

W1nber's slider is 145 osu pixels tall when vertical

145 x 22% = 32

This means 12ms after hitting the slider, your cursor needs to be 32 osu pixels away from the head, this is a visualisation of where the slider ball is.
https://puu.sh/yrGx2/f3e6869783.png

That doesn't look too nice, but when you account that the slider ball is larger than the circle, you end up with this
https://puu.sh/yrH1a/29318c670b.png

In reality, the difference in aim is only 11 osu pixels. While the slider is intimidating, it's not nearly as bad as it looks. I already knew how slider bodies worked when nominating, and I considered it to be a fair use of the mechanic.

If you would like a more detailed explanation, Mo has you covered https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYAujNMPVbY
posted

Mikii wrote:

if alien was rank y not this 1 2


Yo Probox man, did you even check these things ^ ?
can we forget about alien? thanks.
posted
this bothers me immensely but @handsome in the highest diff why is 01:47:305 (2,3,4) - not split like the others D:
posted

Sinnoh wrote:

It seems like there was a bit of concern on the W1nber sliders, let me just clear up why I considered them fine.


Slider tails only consider your position 36ms before the end of the slider, the rest of the tail doesn't matter.

Take 03:18:618 (1) - as an example, its tail is on 03:18:664.
664 - 618 = 46, which is how many ms the slider is.

36 / 46 = 78%, inverse it to 22%

This means you only need to hit 22% of the slider to SS it

W1nber's slider is 145 osu pixels tall when vertical

145 x 22% = 32

This means 12ms after hitting the slider, your cursor needs to be 32 osu pixels away from the head, this is a visualisation of where the slider ball is.
https://puu.sh/yrGx2/f3e6869783.png

That doesn't look too nice, but when you account that the slider ball is larger than the circle, you end up with this
https://puu.sh/yrH1a/29318c670b.png

In reality, the difference in aim is only 11 osu pixels. While the slider is intimidating, it's not nearly as bad as it looks. I already knew how slider bodies worked when nominating, and I considered it to be a fair use of the mechanic.

If you would like a more detailed explanation, Mo has you covered https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYAujNMPVbY
While in essence fair this is pretty lol mechanics-wise. I suspected something like this but after watching the then #1 play on Winber's diff this didn't seem to be the case as how the player got a 300 on the slider was quite inconsistent despite not moving and being within that range.

It checks out though, so nevermind the concerns on the 1/8 sliders (even though I really wish they weren't there because players may try to follow them to no avail).
posted

Mir wrote:

Alright, now for the winber diff which actually has just some questionably unfair gameplay aspects.

  1. 01:00:243 (1,1) - This is too obscured. I guess i can tilt it the other way
  2. 00:12:618 - This section's sv changes are really unclear, mainly because at first glance it looks like you're lowering sv for the kicks, but then 00:15:243 (3) - should be lower, and 00:17:118 (1,2) - should be too. Basically here the unclarity of concept makes this whole section a pain to read and could be a lot better executed if a more consistent instrument/layer were emphasized with sv changes, as for now it just looks like they're made faster to be the same length and for the pattern which comes at the cost of readability and song expression. To be frank, the point was not to follow a specific instrument. It's to follow the general rhythm, and I knew fully well what I was doing is not particularly "easy" to read. The idea was make a pattern technically very easy to play for the experienced players, but give it a little more spice with the reading challenge. I also think it works particularly because I'm not moving the positions of the sliders at all. It's back and forth movement in the same spots pretty much the whole section. So basically what I'm focusing on is purely reading capability, though of course after 1 play through this section you can just "feel" the music and play it seamlessly anyway. I wasn't particularly trying to be very conventional to begin with in this map, and this is one of the variety of "colors" in style that the map gives
  3. 00:59:118 (2,3,4,5,6,1,2) - This part has a drastically lower density and intensity despite being still the same intensity in the song as the other parts. I think a buff is in order here to be consistent with how the other parts are represented. Alright since a few people are mentioning the same thing, I made the spacing a little bigger. I do agree the intensity is not particularly that much lower (if at all), but personally I felt like it was winding down
    and not increasing in intensity at all, so I wanted to have the same feeling in the mapping, but I may "overemphasized" that fact.
  4. 01:25:930 (5) - If you're gonna follow the melody mainly with this pattern this note is better off removed imo. Same for 01:27:149 (3) - Not particularly following specific instruments here, but the general "feel". I didn't particularly feel like the song was exactly "progressing"
    any where but not winding down in any way. The back and forth movement along side the very small spacing and slow progression of the pattern matches with the constant 1/1/tick vocals in the back as well as the "steady" intensity of the music imo. I know very well I'm not mapping everything in the music,
    nor am I trying to follow one particular thing. I just wanted something relatively easy and smooth to play, but not giving a lowering intensity kind of feeling,
    and I just decided to go with back and forth movements and stacks.
  5. 01:45:618 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1) - Yeah... same as topdiff I really don't see what this is mapped to and it seems quite misrepresentative of the actual buildup which is less the intensity mapped but more a soft buildup to lead into the actual buildup. perhaps it depends on he person where the "build up" begins, but I think the whole wind sound effect is quite the build up and the vocals right after it is more of a weaker "suspense" before the next section. You can interpret it differently, but as long as you're intentions are clear and reasonable, I see nothing wrong with doing it this way. It has been accepted that you can map short kick sliders as held notes if done properly, so albet there is not discrete notes played in the fx,
    the constant hitcircles match the continuous rise in the sound and intensity
  6. 02:00:618 (1) - These are fine. 02:09:430 (4,1) - When flow like this gets introduced, it gets questionable. It's quite an unfair gameplay element imo because you can't really be certain how far you have to move to 300 the first slider. Feels kinda rng. There is a special golden zone in timing that you need to hit as well as probably a spot on the slider itself to get a 300. if mastered, it's not too bad, but you actually don't need to move at all to get a 300
  7. 02:26:868 - Again contrast here is a bit much for the slight change in the melody, lowering sv to like 1.3x or something would be more reasonable. I'm also not really a fan of how 02:24:618 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - just sorta maps.. nothing. It's just 1/1 rhythm over the diverse rhythm choices the song is giving you here. small sliders follow vocals, big sliders follow the synth melody
  8. 03:02:868 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... this doesn't map anything specific and is really hard to expect. I think actually mapping the melody here would be more representative than this. The whole second section is a turnaround of the first. All sliders are hitcircles and all hitcircles are sliders in addition to the fact that all sliders are all very low SV. You may not agree with it, but I felt like the whole idea of the map was to really demonstrate the "colors" so to speak of the song as there is so many different things that are going on and that could be mapped, literalyl every section
    is mapped very distinguishably different as well as mapped to different things depending on what felt prominent (or even just a different outlook on an already defined style)
  9. 03:18:617 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - This is very questionable as well. It's too unrealistic to fully 300 this pattern consistently because the distance to move to 300 the first slider is so unclear. It's also really awkward to hit these if you actually move to try to 300 the first slider. The #1 player on this diff didn't move at all to hit these and got a 300 on some and 100 on others based on the position of the stream after it. It just seems really unclear and the rng aspect of it is the unfair point that I'm making here. with good accuracy (rhythmically) you actually will 300 these. Also just as a side note, this is also in line with my previuos statement about emphasizing different parts of the music and colors, namely that i followed the streams in the back more strongly than the main synth melody. I'm just mentioning it cuz I am not just making different cuz I can. I feel like the theme of the map was this "colorfulness" so I just wanted to continue mapping different parts of the music (of course also out of fun as well, not just my mapping intent)


winber's diff, while still pretty intense, suffers from fewer issues than the topdiff. The only clear issues I see are misrepresentation of the song through mapping generic rhythm (see 01:45:618 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1) - 02:24:618 (1,2,1,2,1,2) -03:02:868 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - etc) and the 1/8 slider gimmick is quite frankly unfair to play even if it's SSable. It's just really unclear how far to move to SS it, and as soon as you attempt to move to SS those, the reentry to the stream gets awkward.

true it's a little generic, but at the same time, it greatly contrasts with the difficulties of the other sections, whether it reading difficulty,
technical difficulty, or just accuracy difficulty, etc. Sure i'm trying to be "special", and whether or not I executed that unique style adequately or not is up to the player to decide, but I think if my intentions are clear, and the patterns are within reason, there are no reasons to condone maps like this. I think fanzhen's diff lies in the same boat, very different and unique, but although I felt the the emphasis and some patterns were whack as fuk, i appreciate the novelty and thought that went into some of the patterns.

within reason is a pretty broad statement, and will probably change as players get better, but the point is that mapping is technically still a creative outlet.
There is bad art, but there are also unique styles of art that are just different. it's just a matter of trying to interpret what exactly it's trying to evoke, rather than just basing its worth on first impressions


I hope you can give me a point-by-point reply and that we can come to a consensus.

EDIT: Apparently those things in winber's diff are SSable just really inconsistently it seems.

handsome wrote:

ya

Hakura wrote:

Hakura wrote:

Hakura wrote:

Hakura wrote:

Hakura wrote:

Hakura wrote:

http://puu.sh/yrPwy/0a2a189c5e.osu
posted

Mir wrote:

Sweet Surrender
  1. 00:14:118 - This SV in this section feels much too high for the calmness of the song. When a normal 1/2 slider goes half-way across the screen in a part that only has the addition of drums and a few more notes in the melody from 00:00:618 - I think it's a bit much. Lowering it to .8x or .9x would fit a lot more than 1.2x in my opinion. previous buiodup sliders wer 1.10 and they felt fin too, pretty natural to use 1.2 here.
  2. 01:36:618 (1,2,3,4,5) - This is not really acceptable imo, this sort of spacing/rhythm concept was never introduced before this and such a massive emphasis on 01:36:993 (4) - is so overrepresentative of the small variation in percussion there that it feels out of place. sure
  3. 01:50:118 (1,2,3) - The song's rhythm actually changes here, it's not the same as 01:49:368 (1,2,3) - at all. It's actually more along these lines than what you currently have. It feels really weird to play as it is too. right
  4. 01:53:493 (1,2,1,2,3) - would be nice to emphasize the "ooo" sound at 01:54:243 - like every other buildup does: 01:30:243 (1) - 00:41:868 (1,1,1,1) - 02:42:243 (1) - . Would look a lot more consistent and representative.sure
  5. 02:13:743 (3,1,2) - Also plays unintuitively imo, you need so much velocity to even begin to finish the entirety of 02:14:118 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1) - and this arrangement does not provide that initial speed at all. Would suggest a different arrangement (probably one that has a lot of pull-back movement like this) instead. can't see how it's an improvement considering there's basicaclly 0 player movement as he prepares for the next pattern. in fact i think a slider there might cause too much clutter which was something i tried to avoid
  6. 02:14:118 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,1,2,1,2) - This is just a little bit overboard I think. It's not representative of the actual intensity here and the movement contradicts the concept of the pattern itself. Seeing as 02:14:118 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - decreases for the same pitch (which it shouldn't) but 02:14:868 (1,2,1,2,1) - doesn't. I think this section really needs to be reconsidered in terms of intensity. 02:17:118 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,1,2,1,2,1) - As well suffers the same problems except the spacing is even higher than before (even though the song is the same intensity as the previous pattern) can see where you're coming from but i'm thinking more of the bigger picture here, where the spacing only increases when it's building up to the 1/8 parts, all other parts are decreasing instead, which to me is easier to read, and grasp the rhythm on.
  7. 02:15:618 (1,2,1,1,2,1,1,2,1,1,2,1) - This is frankly ridiculous, it's a completely new concept that plays so much differently from anything else in this kiai. Not only that but it increases in intensity when the song is constant throughout, the same flaw that 02:14:118 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,1,2,1,2,1) - has. The reading spike this induces is quite high and unexpected and the biggest issue is just how out-of-the-blue this is and unfitting with the map in general. it's a ridiculous concept, yes. but i've pretty much made it out to be as clear as possible, with minimal clutter. anything smaller would be far too cluttered and probably feel too similar to the previous 1-2 sections, while anything larger would yeah you get the idea. also, stop bringing up spacing = intensity might as well unrank half the maps in qualified while you're at it. like you previously mentioned, momentum and pattern recognition plays a big part as too why increasing spacing makes sense, from a player's perspective. i'm open to changes & suggestions but right now it's where i'm satisfied with how it looks and plays.
  8. 02:24:149 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - Again while at least this time the pitch/intensity does increase, the spacing is just a bit overdone imo. I think just something like this would fit a lot more and give the same effect. very different feedback to the player, one requires far more aim rhythm than the other, which is fully intended
  9. 02:48:524 (4,1) - There's been some crazy jumps but this one seems a little excessive. sure
  10. 02:49:555 (1,2,3) - This rhythm doesn't even follow the song, like, at all. The start of this phrase is on 02:49:368 - which is in the previous pattern. 02:49:930 - This is the start of the next phrase but ends on the last note of the phrase of the previous pattern. Basically what I'm saying is if you deleted 02:49:368 (3) - and moved back 02:49:555 (1,2,3) - to that spot it would fit what the song is doing. 02:49:930 - This note also gets zero emphasis despite being fairly prominent and syncopated as it just blends into the previous pattern. sure, never really liked this section
  11. 02:50:118 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1) - Mapping all of this melody just to end on the drums at 02:50:868 (1,2,3) - seems a little sudden and a bit odd of a switch. I think that it would make more sense to continue following the melody as the drums are really secondary here, and the melody hits such a peak that gets ignored just to follow the 3/4 drums not even with sliders, but with circles. sure
  12. 02:52:180 (1,2,3) - This sounds no different in the song than 02:51:805 (1,2,3) - so adding 1/8 sliders doesn't really seem all that appropriate. sure
  13. 02:55:930 (1) - This note is overmapped, the melody starts on 02:56:024 - and for a pattern like this it would probably be beneficial to follow exactly what the melody is doing, especially since this is the only overmapped note in this stacked pattern. Apparently it is playable too but introducing this as a concept near the end of the map is a little bit unfair as well as this is very reading-heavy and no stacking like this was ever done before in the map. It feels like another out-of-the-blue addition to the map's already plentiful concepts. no its not
  14. 02:57:618 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - This is backwards, in my opinion. The song increases linearly from start to end, but the pattern density decreases from start to end. It would make more sense to start with circles and end with 1/8 sliders than vice versa here. clap thingies are got 1/8s and they slowly get overpowered by the buildup synth which i think is better represented with the looseness of circles
  15. 03:13:743 (1,2) - This feels awkward and doesn't follow the rhythm of the song here, what would be more accurate is this. This persists throughout this kiai and feels really off especially when there's barely anything on the blue tick there. there's plenty of anything going on the blue tick there

ailv wrote:

00:53:868 (1,2,3,4) - imo these prolly should move upward to match raising pitch and intensity imo no

00:54:618 (1) - ctrl-g to match pitch , u can move it up too to maintain same spacing imo no

00:55:368 (1,2,3,4) - nc imo no

01:40:368 (1,2,3) - why's the spacing so low here, compared to 01:39:618 (1,2,3,4) - or 01:41:118 (1,2,3,4) - or 01:45:618 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - ?
I don't really get why you ignore the 1/4th in these either. it's a gradual decrease in spacing so that the 1/1 stack feels more natural and not a 'stop-and-go' 1/1 stack.

02:23:680 (1) - why not two circles to maintain consistency with the prior section no idea what you're talking about

01:48:618 (1,2,3) - idk what this rhythm is supposed to capture, you missed the syncopated melody on 01:48:993 - 3/4 synths

hi-mei wrote:

Sweet Surrender


Structure:
00:55:930 (1,1,2,3) - I mentioned that thing already, you didnt prepare the player for such flow burst. flow burst bro

What i mean here, is that you dont really know what it is when you see it. The structure you built is deluding. Here is another example:
00:55:930 (1,1,2,3) - and 01:24:243 (1,1,2,3) - these are literally the same pattern-wsem so the player is getting ready for huge triplet, but LOLJK its not. its 1/2s. try playing the map, not looking in edit

01:45:055 (2,3,4) - thats too much in my opinion, its ok when you break the triplets into something like 01:36:805 (2,3,4) - its cool and at least has a flow in it (but still, its 1/4s the f...?) This is also the place where most of players fail. no its not

01:53:680 (2,1) - compare it to 01:51:805 (2,1) - this spike is HUGE and indicates literally nothing (another Candy-Candy chorus), here you got a strong beat 01:53:868 (1) - and no spacing to the previous slider end at all. not strong

02:15:805 (1) - 02:16:180 - 02:16:555 - 02:16:930 - this stuff if where most of players fails at, why? because you didnt restructure these slow sliders (at least make them straight like here 00:42:993 (1) - or here 02:18:243 (1) - ) the biggest flaw of this map in my opinion there is a restructure, with NC and lower spacing for the next note

02:55:930 - so this thing. It lacks 3 (flow, emphasis, structure) out of 4 the most important things in mapping (rhythm is left). You basically removed the visual aspect of the game here. Everyone gets misses/100s/50s cuz of it. I would suggest to make an offset x=2 at least. ?

03:15:243 (1) - you sacrificed structure/flow for aesthetics here. But how is this expected? hard to make sense of what you're saying, really

Hitsounding:
Few words about hitsounds in general:
01:12:805 - till this point there are no rhythm in your hitsounding at all, ???????????

00:39:055 (2) - 00:39:430 (2) - this hitsounds are really questionable, i mean, i basically have no idea why is 00:39:055 (2) - has a Normal and not add/soft+whistle (like this 00:39:430 (2) - )
OR
why is 00:39:430 (2) - add/soft+whistle? You got 4 sounds, 00:38:868 - 00:39:055 - 00:39:243 - 00:39:430 - 1,3 are loud, 2,4 are quiet, but instead of replicating this into music you make these 3 as loud ones 00:38:868 (1,2,1) - and the last one 00:39:430 (2) - as a quite, despite all of them has the same placement and speed. whistle

Flow:
00:52:180 (1,2,3) - its really hard to read, you did kinda similar thing with triplet here 00:48:618 (1,2,3,4) - but it was rather a hold-stream. where in the world are you drawing comparisons from these
02:00:618 (1,1) - 02:09:993 (1) - 03:06:243 (1) - I think that sliders like that should be more simple form-wise, because most of players are struggling in hitting these (i actually watched Yaong's and OPJames replays). My suggestion is to nerf it, like 20% less SV. Let people bitch about fast sliders on hollow wings maps.

Aesthetics:
00:23:118 (1) - it doesnt reflect the music properly, 00:23:868 - this thing is a new sound measure, even being a part of 00:23:118 - doesnt make it that dependent to previous vocal phrase. no

Kaifin wrote:

02:52:180 (1,2,3) - might want to make these a touch slower, really small window for the slider ends + it would read a little better since they're straight making them long af and can look like 1/4: just a minor thing though


reply to my mod, it's been requalified twice without a reply and going through the points in the editor it is clear you did not apply it without replying or anything like that i replied u bro dont fglame me
posted

Nathan wrote:

https://osu.ppy.sh/community/forums/topics/634624

yoooooo today i tried to buy a candy bar from a vending machine and it got stuck i blame this mapset give me my dollar back probox
probox steals money and staff let it slip? nuke this mapset and ban probox.
posted
Since most of your answers are like:

handsome wrote:

no

handsome wrote:

not strong

handsome wrote:

???????????
feels like I am not that welcomed here eh? Nice arguments at the end of 2017!

I will leave this stuff for QAT, thank god they are more active and resolute right now.

but this thing bothers me the most:

handsome wrote:

01:53:680 (2,1) - compare it to 01:51:805 (2,1) - this spike is HUGE and indicates literally nothing (another Candy-Candy chorus), here you got a strong beat 01:53:868 (1) - and no spacing to the previous slider end at all. not strong
does it even matter if that thing is strong or not? You placed a finish and NC there, which means you considered it as strong.

But the entire question here is the cross-screen jump 01:51:805 (2,1) - here which break flow. Compare this to 01:53:305 (2,1) - which is way better and fluent.

handsome wrote:

00:52:180 (1,2,3) - its really hard to read, you did kinda similar thing with triplet here 00:48:618 (1,2,3,4) - but it was rather a hold-stream. where in the world are you drawing comparisons from these
Why do you answering a question with another question?
????????
Im saying that 00:52:180 (1,2,3) - unexpected/unintuitive/forces new concept to the player that has to play a whack-a-mole game.

handsome wrote:

02:15:805 (1) - 02:16:180 - 02:16:555 - 02:16:930 - this stuff if where most of players fails at, why? because you didnt restructure these slow sliders (at least make them straight like here 00:42:993 (1) - or here 02:18:243 (1) - ) the biggest flaw of this map in my opinion there is a restructure, with NC and lower spacing for the next note
It is more thats insufficient, you have to differentiate visually what is slow and what is not, these are having the same form concept.
Ask someone to tesplay it, people are failing at this pat the most.

handsome wrote:

00:23:118 (1) - it doesnt reflect the music properly, 00:23:868 - this thing is a new sound measure, even being a part of 00:23:118 - doesnt make it that dependent to previous vocal phrase. no
yes.

handsome wrote:

03:15:243 (1) - you sacrificed structure/flow for aesthetics here. But how is this expected? hard to make sense of what you're saying, really
Dont you see the SV gap here? from 2x to 0.2x? just to make sure that 03:15:243 (1) - stacked with 03:14:680 (1,2) - ????
Thats what I called a sacrifice. This slow slider is unexpected, there is no tangible sounds to indicate with that.
I know that, you know that, everyone knows that.

handsome wrote:

00:55:930 (1,1,2,3) - and 01:24:243 (1,1,2,3) - these are literally the same pattern-wsem so the player is getting ready for huge triplet, but LOLJK its not. its 1/2s. try playing the map, not looking in edit
Thats the objective flaw, we are mappers and we supposed to estimate the map from editor. If you use 2 objectively the same patterns on a different sound phrases it forces the player to completely give up on memorization and just to read the map from what he sees.

This map is an entire "read me" or "guess the SV" or "guess the rhythm" challenge, which is why people here are trying to bring some logic in and make this thing more fluent.
posted
present me better arguments before attempting to give me your two cents. a lot of your arguments are based on how you see the game and how you interpret it. when some of your reasoning is just so egregious it's hard to take you seriously, and on top of that you expect me to reply properly when half the time i don't even understand the point you're trying to make.

1. makes sense, changed 01:53:680 (2,1) - . fwiw i don't think the two patterns highlighted are very different at all.
2. you didn't even ask a question. anyway, it's not a new concept, it's just a 1/4 triangle. maybe if you had played the map you'd realize there was already a huge one at 00:49:743 (1,2,3) - . what makes you think it's unintuitive, unexpected, and forced? and how is it even remotely close to whack-a-mole when it's fully representative of the music? if you saying it's hard to read then read better, because it really isn't hard to read at all.
3. you're saying everyone fails at every part the most. stop pulling statistics out of your ass to try and back up your reasoning, it's just fluff. read my reply to mir if you want my thoughts on this pattern. and i do think what i've done is sufficient.
4. basically a preference thing, not much there is to it. it's a slow part and pretty inconsequential whether something is changed to be 'objectively better' anyway.
5. already remapped this part so
6. that's not an objective flaw, that's a flaw on how you as a modder & mapper fail to analyze maps from a player's perspective and assume how patterns are read just from a glance in the editor. the ability to read can't simply be extrapolated that easily and it's evident from how stubborn you are that you think these two patterns can be in any form, confused for one another. firstly, neither has any form on consistent playback that would indicate a concept or gimmick and thus the player would not have formed any such assumptions. next, the approach rate is literally maximum, a big 10. 1/4 and 1/2 differences at this bpm, which is relatively low, is extremely easy to tell apart. in fact i'm pretty sure even people playing hidden won't stumble on these patterns. and lastly, they don't even belong in the same section of music. what the hell the two sections are completely different lmao how could this not be any more obvious. also not to mention the stack isn't even the same lol.

hope this is satisfactory
posted

handsome wrote:

present me better arguments before attempting to give me your two cents. a lot of your arguments are based on how you see the game and how you interpret it. when some of your reasoning is just so egregious it's hard to take you seriously, and on top of that you expect me to reply properly when half the time i don't even understand the point you're trying to make.
Before I posted the mod I contacted 2 bns and a member of QAT, which both agreed on my concerns. Its not just me tying to bring attention to myself.

handsome wrote:

2. you didn't even ask a question. anyway, it's not a new concept, it's just a 1/4 triangle. maybe if you had played the map you'd realize there was already a huge one at 00:49:743 (1,2,3) - . what makes you think it's unintuitive, unexpected, and forced? and how is it even remotely close to whack-a-mole when it's fully representative of the music? if you saying it's hard to read then read better, because it really isn't hard to read at all.
00:49:743 - is a part of progression that started from 00:49:368 -
while 00:52:180 (1) - is an independent thing.

In first case you know that there are 1/4s spam, so you play it properly because you used a concept of progression, even tho it wasnt executed good, my comment from initial mod:

hi-mei wrote:

01:01:368 (1,2,3,4) - the way you make escalation here is way different from 00:49:368 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3) - these are the same music phrases but ehhhhhh in first one you do 3.3x > 3.3x > 3.3x> 3.3x > 5.7x > 5.7x
In the second one theres is like: 2.3x > 3.9x > 4.2x > 4.3x
So yeah, I affirm that this triangle triplet is overemphasized.

handsome wrote:

3. you're saying everyone fails at every part the most. stop pulling statistics out of your ass to try and back up your reasoning, it's just fluff. read my reply to mir if you want my thoughts on this pattern. and i do think what i've done is sufficient.
I watched 3 replays: Yaong, OPJames and someone else i cant recall now, all of them failed that part.
I do think that you still HAVE to show what is fast and what is not visually, your arguments like "there are NC" are really weak. Nobody looks at combos at 160 bpm / 3.13x SV.

handsome wrote:

4. basically a preference thing, not much there is to it. it's a slow part and pretty inconsequential whether something is changed to be 'objectively better' anyway.
My point is, you overemphasized a huge part of this map, but this place lacks it, you could use a different slider shape with a flow change at 00:23:868 -
Dont forget that 00:23:868 - still has a tick sound, which isnt reflected in objects at all. Its a sliders combined from 3 progressively increasing loops, which has nothing to do with the vocals or music.

handsome wrote:

6. that's not an objective flaw, that's a flaw on how you as a modder & mapper fail to analyze maps from a player's perspective and assume how patterns are read just from a glance in the editor. the ability to read can't simply be extrapolated that easily and it's evident from how stubborn you are that you think these two patterns can be in any form, confused for one another. firstly, neither has any form on consistent playback that would indicate a concept or gimmick and thus the player would not have formed any such assumptions. next, the approach rate is literally maximum, a big 10. 1/4 and 1/2 differences at this bpm, which is relatively low, is extremely easy to tell apart. in fact i'm pretty sure even people playing hidden won't stumble on these patterns. and lastly, they don't even belong in the same section of music. what the hell the two sections are completely different lmao how could this not be any more obvious. also not to mention the stack isn't even the same lol.
alright
posted
@handsome: Disclaimer, I'm not equating spacing to intensity. I'm equating it to the pattern's difficulty, which happens to be spacing in the majority of them. Intensity can also be SV increase, reading difficulty, aim requirement, etc etc. So I wasn't really implying that.

handsome wrote:

Mir wrote:

Sweet Surrender
  1. 00:14:118 - This SV in this section feels much too high for the calmness of the song. When a normal 1/2 slider goes half-way across the screen in a part that only has the addition of drums and a few more notes in the melody from 00:00:618 - I think it's a bit much. Lowering it to .8x or .9x would fit a lot more than 1.2x in my opinion. previous buiodup sliders wer 1.10 and they felt fin too, pretty natural to use 1.2 here. I can concede to this. Though, I would prefer the buildup sliders have less SV, within this context it works.
  2. 01:36:618 (1,2,3,4,5) - This is not really acceptable imo, this sort of spacing/rhythm concept was never introduced before this and such a massive emphasis on 01:36:993 (4) - is so overrepresentative of the small variation in percussion there that it feels out of place. sure
  3. 01:50:118 (1,2,3) - The song's rhythm actually changes here, it's not the same as 01:49:368 (1,2,3) - at all. It's actually more along these lines than what you currently have. It feels really weird to play as it is too. right
  4. 01:53:493 (1,2,1,2,3) - would be nice to emphasize the "ooo" sound at 01:54:243 - like every other buildup does: 01:30:243 (1) - 00:41:868 (1,1,1,1) - 02:42:243 (1) - . Would look a lot more consistent and representative.sure
  5. 02:13:743 (3,1,2) - Also plays unintuitively imo, you need so much velocity to even begin to finish the entirety of 02:14:118 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1) - and this arrangement does not provide that initial speed at all. Would suggest a different arrangement (probably one that has a lot of pull-back movement like this) instead. can't see how it's an improvement considering there's basicaclly 0 player movement as he prepares for the next pattern. in fact i think a slider there might cause too much clutter which was something i tried to avoid I see, perhaps I didn't explain it in detail enough. So ignoring the placement of 02:13:368 (1,2) - this would be an improvement I think, because the player has the ability to gain momentum through this downward motion. As it is right now, the player doesn't have the downwards motion necessary to build up enough speed to hit the pattern comfortably. This screenshot might help illustrate what I mean. Notice the angle is close to 90 degrees give or take 5~10, this movement plays somewhat like a square pattern and isn't really too comfortable of an entry because the player has to make an axis shift (from moving along the x-axis to the y-axis) whereas something like what I suggested keeps the player moving along the same axis, making it a lot more comfortable (especially as well that it's a up-down movement) to build up speed because the player can just "pull-back" instead of having to shift from the x-axis to the y-axis.
  6. 02:14:118 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,1,2,1,2) - This is just a little bit overboard I think. It's not representative of the actual intensity here and the movement contradicts the concept of the pattern itself. Seeing as 02:14:118 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - decreases for the same pitch (which it shouldn't) but 02:14:868 (1,2,1,2,1) - doesn't. I think this section really needs to be reconsidered in terms of intensity. 02:17:118 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,1,2,1,2,1) - As well suffers the same problems except the spacing is even higher than before (even though the song is the same intensity as the previous pattern) can see where you're coming from but i'm thinking more of the bigger picture here, where the spacing only increases when it's building up to the 1/8 parts, all other parts are decreasing instead, which to me is easier to read, and grasp the rhythm on. I see your point but my point was more that it doesn't fit really what the song was doing and then my secondary concern was the pattern's own concept. I can see now what you were trying to accomplish, but that doesn't really fit the static intensity of the song during which you lower spacing then increase it again. I just think it would be more representative if it were slightly nerfed in spacing but constant throughout. I'm also not going to imply you change 02:14:680 (1) - either but it could benefit from the same idea I explained above (with more single-axis movement)
  7. 02:15:618 (1,2,1,1,2,1,1,2,1,1,2,1) - This is frankly ridiculous, it's a completely new concept that plays so much differently from anything else in this kiai. Not only that but it increases in intensity when the song is constant throughout, the same flaw that 02:14:118 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,1,2,1,2,1) - has. The reading spike this induces is quite high and unexpected and the biggest issue is just how out-of-the-blue this is and unfitting with the map in general. it's a ridiculous concept, yes. but i've pretty much made it out to be as clear as possible, with minimal clutter. anything smaller would be far too cluttered and probably feel too similar to the previous 1-2 sections, while anything larger would yeah you get the idea. also, stop bringing up spacing = intensity might as well unrank half the maps in qualified while you're at it. like you previously mentioned, momentum and pattern recognition plays a big part as too why increasing spacing makes sense, from a player's perspective. i'm open to changes & suggestions but right now it's where i'm satisfied with how it looks and plays. Hm, I see. I think it could work if you did a similar thing with 02:13:368 (1,2,3) - ? Since it has the same rhythm just a lot slower? Maybe less likely but worth suggesting, maybe something with 02:14:493 (1,2,1) - as well as it has the same rhythm too? Still going to stand on the side that this pattern is really unfitting without a proper introduction to it. Also side-note, could you possibly silence the sliderends here? They stand out a lot and it might actually be nicer to hear the actual feedback of the active notes hit if the tail weren't accompanying every active hit.
  8. 02:24:149 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - Again while at least this time the pitch/intensity does increase, the spacing is just a bit overdone imo. I think just something like this would fit a lot more and give the same effect. very different feedback to the player, one requires far more aim rhythm than the other, which is fully intended Alright, I can see that. Maybe a way to make this a little more comfortable to build into would be to unstack 02:24:149 (1,2) - and have something like this instead? I think a slight nerf in spacing would be nice too, maybe 1.2x for the middle pair, and 5x for the last pair?
  9. 02:55:930 (1) - This note is overmapped, the melody starts on 02:56:024 - and for a pattern like this it would probably be beneficial to follow exactly what the melody is doing, especially since this is the only overmapped note in this stacked pattern. Apparently it is playable too but introducing this as a concept near the end of the map is a little bit unfair as well as this is very reading-heavy and no stacking like this was ever done before in the map. It feels like another out-of-the-blue addition to the map's already plentiful concepts. no its not This... doesn't tell me anything. You can disagree but I'll still stand by this point unless you provide a counter-argument.
  10. 02:57:618 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - This is backwards, in my opinion. The song increases linearly from start to end, but the pattern density decreases from start to end. It would make more sense to start with circles and end with 1/8 sliders than vice versa here. clap thingies are got 1/8s and they slowly get overpowered by the buildup synth which i think is better represented with the looseness of circles Mmm... I see, I guess that's fair.
  11. 03:13:743 (1,2) - This feels awkward and doesn't follow the rhythm of the song here, what would be more accurate is this. This persists throughout this kiai and feels really off especially when there's barely anything on the blue tick there. there's plenty of anything going on the blue tick there I'm not sure what you mean? Since the main melody this part seems to be following is the vocal chops, the rhythm I suggest is the accurate rhythm that part should have if following said melody. If you're not following the vocal chops I would then question why that one slider follows something different than the whole rest of the section. Still standing by this point.

winber1 wrote:

Mir wrote:

Alright, now for the winber diff which actually has just some questionably unfair gameplay aspects.

  1. 01:00:243 (1,1) - This is too obscured. I guess i can tilt it the other way
  2. 00:12:618 - This section's sv changes are really unclear, mainly because at first glance it looks like you're lowering sv for the kicks, but then 00:15:243 (3) - should be lower, and 00:17:118 (1,2) - should be too. Basically here the unclarity of concept makes this whole section a pain to read and could be a lot better executed if a more consistent instrument/layer were emphasized with sv changes, as for now it just looks like they're made faster to be the same length and for the pattern which comes at the cost of readability and song expression. To be frank, the point was not to follow a specific instrument. It's to follow the general rhythm, and I knew fully well what I was doing is not particularly "easy" to read. The idea was make a pattern technically very easy to play for the experienced players, but give it a little more spice with the reading challenge. I also think it works particularly because I'm not moving the positions of the sliders at all. It's back and forth movement in the same spots pretty much the whole section. So basically what I'm focusing on is purely reading capability, though of course after 1 play through this section you can just "feel" the music and play it seamlessly anyway. I wasn't particularly trying to be very conventional to begin with in this map, and this is one of the variety of "colors" in style that the map gives Ehh... I don't know if I can really see what you mean here. It just seems really random to me. I'll wait for more people's input on this issue. For now I can understand your sentiment, but the song and map don't line up - and ideally it should be mapped in a way that makes it clear what "colors" or "style" you're showing but this doesn't really hit it in my opinion.
  3. 00:59:118 (2,3,4,5,6,1,2) - This part has a drastically lower density and intensity despite being still the same intensity in the song as the other parts. I think a buff is in order here to be consistent with how the other parts are represented. Alright since a few people are mentioning the same thing, I made the spacing a little bigger. I do agree the intensity is not particularly that much lower (if at all), but personally I felt like it was winding down
    and not increasing in intensity at all, so I wanted to have the same feeling in the mapping, but I may "overemphasized" that fact.
  4. 01:25:930 (5) - If you're gonna follow the melody mainly with this pattern this note is better off removed imo. Same for 01:27:149 (3) - Not particularly following specific instruments here, but the general "feel". I didn't particularly feel like the song was exactly "progressing"
    any where but not winding down in any way. The back and forth movement along side the very small spacing and slow progression of the pattern matches with the constant 1/1/tick vocals in the back as well as the "steady" intensity of the music imo. I know very well I'm not mapping everything in the music,
    nor am I trying to follow one particular thing. I just wanted something relatively easy and smooth to play, but not giving a lowering intensity kind of feeling,
    and I just decided to go with back and forth movements and stacks.
    I can see that but it doesn't really give that feeling to me either,
    I'm just suggesting to remove them to follow the the "steady intensity" as you said. Keeping that note in actually raises the intensity of the map (albeit not by much, but still could feel more or less unneeded by the player) and that kinda contradicts that.
  5. 01:45:618 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1) - Yeah... same as topdiff I really don't see what this is mapped to and it seems quite misrepresentative of the actual buildup which is less the intensity mapped but more a soft buildup to lead into the actual buildup. perhaps it depends on he person where the "build up" begins, but I think the whole wind sound effect is quite the build up and the vocals right after it is more of a weaker "suspense" before the next section. You can interpret it differently, but as long as you're intentions are clear and reasonable, I see nothing wrong with doing it this way. It has been accepted that you can map short kick sliders as held notes if done properly, so albet there is not discrete notes played in the fx,
    the constant hitcircles match the continuous rise in the sound and intensity
    I can't really agree with this even if it's done before.
    I've also never really heard of this being generally accepted but if it is I don't see why and it doesn't represent the buildup here. What I know is accepted is mapping buzz sliders to held buildups, but not entire 24 note streams. I still stand by that this doesn't represent the intensity. Regardless of how it's interpreted, the song objectively does not go 1/4 here and definitely not to this degree. I'm still open to being convinced but I don't know how much convincing I'll need to give into this, as it just doesn't follow the rhythm. It follows the feel maybe, sure, but you can make a feel with buzz sliders or a long slider or god forbid a spinner too.
  6. 02:00:618 (1) - These are fine. 02:09:430 (4,1) - When flow like this gets introduced, it gets questionable. It's quite an unfair gameplay element imo because you can't really be certain how far you have to move to 300 the first slider. Feels kinda rng. There is a special golden zone in timing that you need to hit as well as probably a spot on the slider itself to get a 300. if mastered, it's not too bad, but you actually don't need to move at all to get a 300 Yeah, I see that now. While insane, it's doable. This is fine.
  7. 02:26:868 - Again contrast here is a bit much for the slight change in the melody, lowering sv to like 1.3x or something would be more reasonable. I'm also not really a fan of how 02:24:618 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - just sorta maps.. nothing. It's just 1/1 rhythm over the diverse rhythm choices the song is giving you here. small sliders follow vocals, big sliders follow the synth melody a. Didn't really count the vocals as worth mapping cuz it blends almost completely into the back, but okay. Now my question is why not follow the melody all the time and not just for the peaks of it? Feels a bit off to me since you did 02:30:618 - later on, which could easily be replicated before with less spacing, or could be changed to have 1/1 sliders that increase in SV?
  8. 03:02:868 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... this doesn't map anything specific and is really hard to expect. I think actually mapping the melody here would be more representative than this. The whole second section is a turnaround of the first. All sliders are hitcircles and all hitcircles are sliders in addition to the fact that all sliders are all very low SV. You may not agree with it, but I felt like the whole idea of the map was to really demonstrate the "colors" so to speak of the song as there is so many different things that are going on and that could be mapped, literalyl every section
    is mapped very distinguishably different as well as mapped to different things depending on what felt prominent (or even just a different outlook on an already defined style)
    I actually see now why you decided to do this, and it makes sense to me. So this is fine.
  9. 03:18:617 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - This is very questionable as well. It's too unrealistic to fully 300 this pattern consistently because the distance to move to 300 the first slider is so unclear. It's also really awkward to hit these if you actually move to try to 300 the first slider. The #1 player on this diff didn't move at all to hit these and got a 300 on some and 100 on others based on the position of the stream after it. It just seems really unclear and the rng aspect of it is the unfair point that I'm making here. with good accuracy (rhythmically) you actually will 300 these. Also just as a side note, this is also in line with my previuos statement about emphasizing different parts of the music and colors, namely that i followed the streams in the back more strongly than the main synth melody. I'm just mentioning it cuz I am not just making different cuz I can. I feel like the theme of the map was this "colorfulness" so I just wanted to continue mapping different parts of the music (of course also out of fun as well, not just my mapping intent) Already conceded this point.


winber's diff, while still pretty intense, suffers from fewer issues than the topdiff. The only clear issues I see are misrepresentation of the song through mapping generic rhythm (see 01:45:618 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1) - 02:24:618 (1,2,1,2,1,2) -03:02:868 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - etc) and the 1/8 slider gimmick is quite frankly unfair to play even if it's SSable. It's just really unclear how far to move to SS it, and as soon as you attempt to move to SS those, the reentry to the stream gets awkward.

true it's a little generic, but at the same time, it greatly contrasts with the difficulties of the other sections, whether it reading difficulty,
technical difficulty, or just accuracy difficulty, etc. Sure i'm trying to be "special", and whether or not I executed that unique style adequately or not is up to the player to decide, but I think if my intentions are clear, and the patterns are within reason, there are no reasons to condone maps like this. I think fanzhen's diff lies in the same boat, very different and unique, but although I felt the the emphasis and some patterns were whack as fuk, i appreciate the novelty and thought that went into some of the patterns.

within reason is a pretty broad statement, and will probably change as players get better, but the point is that mapping is technically still a creative outlet.
There is bad art, but there are also unique styles of art that are just different. it's just a matter of trying to interpret what exactly it's trying to evoke, rather than just basing its worth on first impressions


I hope you can give me a point-by-point reply and that we can come to a consensus.

EDIT: Apparently those things in winber's diff are SSable just really inconsistently it seems.
To winber, I get that "art" is largely intepretive but it should stick as close to the song as possible in my opinion. Either way, we're making progress, so that's good.
posted
hi chiming in some rather agreeable stuff. i don't know why people are freaking out over this map, it's just kind of silly but isn't really trying to do anything particularly groundbreaking or unheard of, all of these trick patterns exist elsewhere.



Sweet Surrender
01:24:618 (1,2,3,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,1,2,3,4,1,2,1,2,3,4,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,1) - this seems like it's trying to follow the melody but it's really not following the melody at all - specifically, new comboing and some minor pattern changes to better fit the melody and turning - like new comboing at 01:24:805 - instead of 01:24:618 - , 01:25:180 (4,5) - turning this into a 1/4 slider since there's no actual 5-note roll here like the others, etc etc. it's pretty "minor" playability-wise but it really fucks with how the map's going with the music.

01:42:234 - All I really think should be done here is to put some consistency to the angle with which players need to jerk to hit the last note in the triple - 01:42:055 (2,3,4) - is actually much harder to hit than 01:42:805 (2,3,4) - , as i'm sure you're aware, and not due to spacing.
01:39:055 (2,3,4,5) - Should also let the melody chime in a bit, this is the last repeat of this pattern so you can get away with changing up the rhythm.

03:00:899 (1,2) - really switch ncs, 2 is the start of the actual section...

03:13:743 (1,2,1,2) - This plays out more like a slider-triple-slider, not two circlesliders, at full speed - listening at low speed my be "right" but it won't ever "feel" right. 03:14:493 (2,1,2,1) - "feels right" because you did it with the triple despite a nearly identical roll being used. This kind of thing repeats, so it's consistent, but still seems weird.

03:29:868 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - This stream being the only one with a sharp turn (A literal 180) seems out of place. Either add more sharp turns at the midpoints to the other ones at points to make it part of a pattern, or smooth this one out.

03:36:430 (1) - Silence this sliderslide. It's audible and fucks with the ending fade.




fanzhen
00:45:618 (1,2,3,4) - any reason this is a straight line and not a twitched shape like the other three 1234s?

also idk why people are up in arms about this either it's just....plain and kind of boring tbh. got some weird melody skips like 03:15:430 (6,1) - that make it feel like the patterns were poorly designed to not actually follow the music, but that's normal for this kind of map.
03:30:993 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12) - did u just get bored and stop the spacing changes lol
posted

Mir wrote:

Alright, now for the winber diff which actually has just some questionably unfair gameplay aspects.

  1. 01:00:243 (1,1) - This is too obscured. I guess i can tilt it the other way
  2. 00:12:618 - This section's sv changes are really unclear, mainly because at first glance it looks like you're lowering sv for the kicks, but then 00:15:243 (3) - should be lower, and 00:17:118 (1,2) - should be too. Basically here the unclarity of concept makes this whole section a pain to read and could be a lot better executed if a more consistent instrument/layer were emphasized with sv changes, as for now it just looks like they're made faster to be the same length and for the pattern which comes at the cost of readability and song expression. To be frank, the point was not to follow a specific instrument. It's to follow the general rhythm, and I knew fully well what I was doing is not particularly "easy" to read. The idea was make a pattern technically very easy to play for the experienced players, but give it a little more spice with the reading challenge. I also think it works particularly because I'm not moving the positions of the sliders at all. It's back and forth movement in the same spots pretty much the whole section. So basically what I'm focusing on is purely reading capability, though of course after 1 play through this section you can just "feel" the music and play it seamlessly anyway. I wasn't particularly trying to be very conventional to begin with in this map, and this is one of the variety of "colors" in style that the map gives Ehh... I don't know if I can really see what you mean here. It just seems really random to me. I'll wait for more people's input on this issue. For now I can understand your sentiment, but the song and map don't line up - and ideally it should be mapped in a way that makes it clear what "colors" or "style" you're showing but this doesn't really hit it in my opinion.honestly, it might not be executed that well, I could have been a little more consistent, but I can attest that for many people the rhythm feels very natural. In the end really, the mapping intent was just to make this more of a reading heavy pattern
  3. 00:59:118 (2,3,4,5,6,1,2) - This part has a drastically lower density and intensity despite being still the same intensity in the song as the other parts. I think a buff is in order here to be consistent with how the other parts are represented. Alright since a few people are mentioning the same thing, I made the spacing a little bigger. I do agree the intensity is not particularly that much lower (if at all), but personally I felt like it was winding down
    and not increasing in intensity at all, so I wanted to have the same feeling in the mapping, but I may "overemphasized" that fact.
  4. 01:25:930 (5) - If you're gonna follow the melody mainly with this pattern this note is better off removed imo. Same for 01:27:149 (3) - Not particularly following specific instruments here, but the general "feel". I didn't particularly feel like the song was exactly "progressing"
    any where but not winding down in any way. The back and forth movement along side the very small spacing and slow progression of the pattern matches with the constant 1/1/tick vocals in the back as well as the "steady" intensity of the music imo. I know very well I'm not mapping everything in the music,
    nor am I trying to follow one particular thing. I just wanted something relatively easy and smooth to play, but not giving a lowering intensity kind of feeling,
    and I just decided to go with back and forth movements and stacks.
    I can see that but it doesn't really give that feeling to me either,
    I'm just suggesting to remove them to follow the the "steady intensity" as you said. Keeping that note in actually raises the intensity of the map (albeit not by much, but still could feel more or less unneeded by the player) and that kinda contradicts that.
    idk I think removing that note just puts an awkward pause for no reason and stops teh back and forth motion. I'm either forced to stack it, use very questionable anti-spacing or just put it somewhere else.
  5. 01:45:618 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1) - Yeah... same as topdiff I really don't see what this is mapped to and it seems quite misrepresentative of the actual buildup which is less the intensity mapped but more a soft buildup to lead into the actual buildup. perhaps it depends on he person where the "build up" begins, but I think the whole wind sound effect is quite the build up and the vocals right after it is more of a weaker "suspense" before the next section. You can interpret it differently, but as long as you're intentions are clear and reasonable, I see nothing wrong with doing it this way. It has been accepted that you can map short kick sliders as held notes if done properly, so albet there is not discrete notes played in the fx,
    the constant hitcircles match the continuous rise in the sound and intensity
    I can't really agree with this even if it's done before.
    I've also never really heard of this being generally accepted but if it is I don't see why and it doesn't represent the buildup here. What I know is accepted is mapping buzz sliders to held buildups, but not entire 24 note streams. I still stand by that this doesn't represent the intensity. Regardless of how it's interpreted, the song objectively does not go 1/4 here and definitely not to this degree. I'm still open to being convinced but I don't know how much convincing I'll need to give into this, as it just doesn't follow the rhythm. It follows the feel maybe, sure, but you can make a feel with buzz sliders or a long slider or god forbid a spinner too.
    Difference in opinion I guess. it would be a different story if the stream constant high ds spacing or really jagged/sharp angles, but the stream plays extremely fluidly. I'm sure most people who can play this pattern well can attest that replacing this WHOLE section with maybe a few repeat sliders, or a spinner, or a long slider (and vice versa) would make this section bounds more moring and uninteresting.
    I believe using multiple repeat sliders often work well for things you want to map passively, but personally I think the buildup isn't particularly passive and big spacing is the wrong way to represent it
  6. 02:00:618 (1) - These are fine. 02:09:430 (4,1) - When flow like this gets introduced, it gets questionable. It's quite an unfair gameplay element imo because you can't really be certain how far you have to move to 300 the first slider. Feels kinda rng. There is a special golden zone in timing that you need to hit as well as probably a spot on the slider itself to get a 300. if mastered, it's not too bad, but you actually don't need to move at all to get a 300 Yeah, I see that now. While insane, it's doable. This is fine.
  7. 02:26:868 - Again contrast here is a bit much for the slight change in the melody, lowering sv to like 1.3x or something would be more reasonable. I'm also not really a fan of how 02:24:618 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - just sorta maps.. nothing. It's just 1/1 rhythm over the diverse rhythm choices the song is giving you here. small sliders follow vocals, big sliders follow the synth melody a. Didn't really count the vocals as worth mapping cuz it blends almost completely into the back, but okay. Now my question is why not follow the melody all the time and not just for the peaks of it? Feels a bit off to me since you did 02:30:618 - later on, which could easily be replicated before with less spacing, or could be changed to have 1/1 sliders that increase in SV?I do this "following different parts of the music" thing a lot throughout the map (e.g. 03:12:618 - , 03:24:618 - ,02:36:618 - , and these three sections combined 01:24:618 - 01:59:868 - ). Like literally every part of the song I'm mapping something pretty wildly different and in a different way, yet I still feel like the mapping style feels "cohesive" in a way.

    For example 01:24:618 - 01:59:868 - the artist doesn't particularly even use any different melodies in these sections for the most part, albeit with some minor tweaks and drum beat changes. In fact, literally all that is happening is that the artist is bringingout different parts of the music by adding different sound effects and modulations to them. And in order to be equal to all those parts, I've also mapped in such a way to represent different parts of the music everytime something feels like it has changed, even though technically the melodies have always been there in the back, just less emphasized.

    Also, I liked this pattern because it gives like a "cooldown" for the player for a previously more difficult section, and then it starts ramping back up again, wit hthe second section being all hitcircles.
  8. 03:02:868 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... this doesn't map anything specific and is really hard to expect. I think actually mapping the melody here would be more representative than this. The whole second section is a turnaround of the first. All sliders are hitcircles and all hitcircles are sliders in addition to the fact that all sliders are all very low SV. You may not agree with it, but I felt like the whole idea of the map was to really demonstrate the "colors" so to speak of the song as there is so many different things that are going on and that could be mapped, literalyl every section
    is mapped very distinguishably different as well as mapped to different things depending on what felt prominent (or even just a different outlook on an already defined style)
    I actually see now why you decided to do this, and it makes sense to me. So this is fine.
  9. 03:18:617 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - This is very questionable as well. It's too unrealistic to fully 300 this pattern consistently because the distance to move to 300 the first slider is so unclear. It's also really awkward to hit these if you actually move to try to 300 the first slider. The #1 player on this diff didn't move at all to hit these and got a 300 on some and 100 on others based on the position of the stream after it. It just seems really unclear and the rng aspect of it is the unfair point that I'm making here. with good accuracy (rhythmically) you actually will 300 these. Also just as a side note, this is also in line with my previuos statement about emphasizing different parts of the music and colors, namely that i followed the streams in the back more strongly than the main synth melody. I'm just mentioning it cuz I am not just making different cuz I can. I feel like the theme of the map was this "colorfulness" so I just wanted to continue mapping different parts of the music (of course also out of fun as well, not just my mapping intent) Already conceded this point.


winber's diff, while still pretty intense, suffers from fewer issues than the topdiff. The only clear issues I see are misrepresentation of the song through mapping generic rhythm (see 01:45:618 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1) - 02:24:618 (1,2,1,2,1,2) -03:02:868 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - etc) and the 1/8 slider gimmick is quite frankly unfair to play even if it's SSable. It's just really unclear how far to move to SS it, and as soon as you attempt to move to SS those, the reentry to the stream gets awkward.

true it's a little generic, but at the same time, it greatly contrasts with the difficulties of the other sections, whether it reading difficulty,
technical difficulty, or just accuracy difficulty, etc. Sure i'm trying to be "special", and whether or not I executed that unique style adequately or not is up to the player to decide, but I think if my intentions are clear, and the patterns are within reason, there are no reasons to condone maps like this. I think fanzhen's diff lies in the same boat, very different and unique, but although I felt the the emphasis and some patterns were whack as fuk, i appreciate the novelty and thought that went into some of the patterns.

within reason is a pretty broad statement, and will probably change as players get better, but the point is that mapping is technically still a creative outlet.
There is bad art, but there are also unique styles of art that are just different. it's just a matter of trying to interpret what exactly it's trying to evoke, rather than just basing its worth on first impressions


I hope you can give me a point-by-point reply and that we can come to a consensus.

EDIT: Apparently those things in winber's diff are SSable just really inconsistently it seems.

To winber, I get that "art" is largely intepretive but it should stick as close to the song as possible in my opinion. Either way, we're making progress, so that's good.

i'm not teh best at explainig things either, but my two cents is that you don't have to like everything, but interpreting something as "to the song" is also largely subjective. Man, like I've mapped many songs which I've tried to either map everything I possibly could, or just used very normal patterns, and it never turns out that interesting. If I wanted to make it fun to play (for myself at least), I would've just spammed 1 2 jumps everywhere, but that wouldn't particularly make me feel any better about what map I made. I think it's pretty cool to explore what you can actually do with just hitcircles and sliders, rather than make a map that most people can't argue anything against.
posted

hi-mei wrote:

handsome wrote:

present me better arguments before attempting to give me your two cents. a lot of your arguments are based on how you see the game and how you interpret it. when some of your reasoning is just so egregious it's hard to take you seriously, and on top of that you expect me to reply properly when half the time i don't even understand the point you're trying to make.
Before I posted the mod I contacted 2 bns and a member of QAT, which both agreed on my concerns. Its not just me tying to bring attention to myself.

Manipulating intent. Do the 2 BN's and QAT really agree with all of your concerns? If not they are irrelevant and are just being used to attempt to give your "concerns" more backbone. Use logic and reasoning, not rhetoric. Unless you can quote the BN's/QAT's saying that at that specific time they also agree with your reasoning, this is just manipulating their words and applying them to whatever context you want.


handsome wrote:

3. you're saying everyone fails at every part the most. stop pulling statistics out of your ass to try and back up your reasoning, it's just fluff. read my reply to mir if you want my thoughts on this pattern. and i do think what i've done is sufficient.
I watched 3 replays: Yaong, OPJames and someone else i cant recall now, all of them failed that part.
I do think that you still HAVE to show what is fast and what is not visually, your arguments like "there are NC" are really weak. Nobody looks at combos at 160 bpm / 3.13x SV.

3 replays = everyone? Also did you talk to those people who failed? Failing a section is literally meaningless without the player's response. It could have played perfectly fine, but they misread. it could have been that they just missed. It could have been because someone walked into their room. etc... This argument is moot without player response. Using that logic to justify your reasoning just demonstrates you're trying to force a change without solid evidence.


[]

Use logical arguments, not rhetoric please... You can use rhetoric on newer mappers and get them to change stuff, but please respect the fact that everyone here is highly experienced and knows what they are doing. There is clearly reasoning and motive to all the patterns used. Best to respond with mapping analysis, not manipulated statistics or broad statements.
posted
Thanks for opinion, it was very useful and informative! Your point of view is so important for me, so please, keep me updated with your insightful thoughts.

Thank you!
posted

hi-mei wrote:

Thanks for opinion, it was very useful and informative! Your point of view is so important for me, so please, keep me updated with your insightful thoughts.

Thank you!
being passive aggressive doesn't help your case nor does it make people think you're worth listening to!
posted
guys lets chill
posted

hi-mei wrote:

guys lets chill
???
show more
Please sign in to reply.