@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.
Mir wrote:Sweet Surrender
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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)
- 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.
- 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?
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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.
Mir wrote:Alright, now for the winber diff which actually has just some questionably unfair gameplay aspects.
- 01:00:243 (1,1) - This is too obscured. I guess i can tilt it the other way
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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?
- 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.
- 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.