forum

Noah - Celestial stinger

posted
Total Posts
115
show more
Topic Starter
Kroytz
Everything's been updated~
squirrelpascals
we talked about making a couple more adjustments to things in the top diff

rebub was requested
Topic Starter
Kroytz
Fixed hitsoundings on some diffs
Kuron-kun
eeeeee
Ascendance
not that it really matters but because of ur top diff name you can delete Ortlinde=NBLG=Valkyria from the tags
squirrelpascals
DKSJFHHFKLDSFHJ
-Kanzaki
are you guys sure this is okay on top diff : 01:34:626 (1) - how to play this, in mlaw's play he couldn't even do it with "HT"

edit: 00:36:710 (1,1,1) - same for these too high sv
Myxo
[PoNo's]

  1. 00:29:934 - feels weird to not map this note as it belongs to the stream in the music
  2. 01:03:583 (1,2,3) - due to the low spacing between these there is almost no emphasis here, feels very underwhelming. 01:04:510 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1) - also feels a bit underwhelming because the strong cymbals on every second white tick aren't emphasized in any way
  3. 01:21:536 (3,4) - movement between these feels unintuitive, cause 01:21:420 (2) - makes the player expect a stack or atleast low spacing after the 3/4-slider
[Highest Diff]

  1. 00:30:224 (1,2,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,1,2,3,4) - this part is a mess. it's inconsistent for which sounds or sound combinations you are using 3/4 sliders, 1/1 sliders or 1/2 sliders. examples: 00:31:846 (3) - is a 1/1-slider (that even ends on the downbeat) while 00:31:382 (1,2) - were 3/4 sliders, 00:32:772 (4) - is different from 00:31:846 (3) - and 00:32:309 (1) - even though the sounds are the same, 00:33:236 (3) - is the same sounds again but mapped differently again. similar inconsistencies happen in other sections that include a lot of extended sliders, feels like there is no logic behind most of them
  2. 00:37:058 (1) - why is this extended when 00:36:710 (1) - is not
  3. 00:39:490 (1,2,1,2,3,4,5) - the sudden linear jumps created by 00:39:490 (1,2,1) - , and ESPECIALLY 00:39:722 (1,2,3,4,5) - being a spaced stream feel way overdone for this calm section. the stream has significantly higher spacing than most of your other streams which happen during much more intense sections, it's a huge difficulty spike and feels out of place here
  4. 00:40:417 (1,1,2,3,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - fullscreen jumps, even if just 130 BPM, are also a really poor choice for a calm section of a song
  5. 01:44:587 (1,2,3,4) - should be snapped to 1/3. this is wrong in most other diffs too, though in those which don't include 1/3 it can be fine as a simplification. here it doesn't make sense because you use 1/3 at other places too
other diffs are alright, but how the calm section is mapped in the highest diff as well as the awkward rhythm inconsistencies really bring the quality down. also the top diff is spam of huge jumps in some sections, where spacing or movement emphasis gets kinda lost. rather disappointing to still see something like that from you with the experience you have as a mapper by now
MaridiuS
"00:37:058 (1) - why is this extended when 00:36:710 (1) - is not" first one seems to end on a drum so it seems justified

With the rest I agree and I have additional concerns regarding top diff

  1. When using such large spacing as a basis, nothing is really emphasized. Using just minimal spacing difference to "emphasize" a note doesn't work in such huge spacing because they play essentially the same. The most obvious example is here for example 00:54:085 (6,7,1) - . The (1) marks the first downbeat in addition to being loud with the guitar, cymbal and whatnot but it's spacing is just sligthly higher than the basis of the section. Some are kinda justified because the movement is hard for sliders like 00:51:421 (1) - .Because it's made like this there's nothing for the player to look forward to, everything is just spaced a lot.

Some more case to case for that concern: 00:50:610 (1) - This slider here starts the big section yet it has lower spacing than the circle before it and also comfortable movement which leaves the note not emphasized at all except by rhythm.

  1. 00:47:830 (1,1,1,1) - These are not emphasized at all except by rhythm. With low spacing and 1/2 gaps without circles they're significantly easier to do than the rest of the section when it should be vise versa.
  2. 00:48:988 (2,3,1) - and 00:49:452 (2,3,1) - are really nice and feel nice because they have proper contrast from the weaker and stronger notes.
  3. 00:52:232 (6,1) - Because of your huge overall spacing slider to slider patterns are incomparably easier because in the grid you cannot use more spacing to balance the difficulty with spacing since the rhythm makes it easier. So in this part the (1) is much easier to do than its counterparts, its same spacing except its slider to slider now.
  4. 01:45:050 (6,1) - In this section this is the only example in which you emphasized the (1) with such awkward movement. Compare it to 01:46:209 (1) - (whose emphasis is in minus) and 01:47:019 (1) - which is quite comfortable you can easily see the inconsistency. I can suggest making it all to awkward movement but that would be such a pain on this bpm, so the safest way is just to simple emphasize it with spacing and make it consisent. Currently the section seems like a mess tbh because nothing is really consistent.
Rhythmic concerns

  1. 00:50:610 - This section is emphasizing drums. I don't think the kicks are pratically that audible or important compared to the solo guitar which you randomly decide to follow like here 00:52:000 (5,6) - . Idk I can't offer many opinions here I just feel like its a miss to map over the solo guitar on plenty of places like 00:51:073 (1) - 00:53:853 (4,6) - 00:55:012 (5) - etc.
  2. 01:36:131 (2) - and 01:36:362 (2) - This is really indistinct compared to 01:36:016 (1,1) - . In the section you tend to map the solo guitar so i dont understand how do those fairly inaudible sounds warrant active rhythm. 01:40:185 (4) - Here you end on such a guitar note.
  3. 01:46:556 (1,2,1,2) - And more such examples in which (2)'s are muuch weaker than (1)'s but both are mapped actively and with same spacing.
Other stuff

  1. 01:52:463 (1) - and 01:34:626 (1) - I literally do not understand why must you put in this SV, nobody enjoys this and as like kanzaki pointed out, Mlaw couldn't even play it on HT properly. Players have no control over this sliders, they just look cool but they offer the most annoying gameplay experience where you have to hit it in such perfect timing window and then move the cursor accordingly in order to play it "properly". It won't even be proper because the players will surely not move with the curves of the sliders.
  2. 01:41:807 (2,3,4,5,6,7) - The drums kick in 01:42:039 (4,5,6,7) - yet they get 0 emphasis with this descent in spacing. If the guitar is dropping in intensity but drums are raising it isn't as 1dimensional as to just follow guitar layer, when following the drums will be much more stimulating and exciting.
Topic Starter
Kroytz

Myxomatosis wrote:

[Highest Diff]

other diffs are alright, but how the calm section is mapped in the highest diff as well as the awkward rhythm inconsistencies really bring the quality down. also the top diff is spam of huge jumps in some sections, where spacing or movement emphasis gets kinda lost. rather disappointing to still see something like that from you with the experience you have as a mapper by now I can't tell - was this supposed to be a mod post to help bring the quality of my beatmap up, or if this was typed up to antagonize my decisions and scrutinize my interpretation? I don't take lightly to 'mods' that don't provide any useful or constructive criticism, especially those that question my integrity as a mapper. To me, this all sounds like, "I don't understand why you did this, and I don't like how you did that" without providing feasible alternatives.

  1. 00:30:224 (1,2,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,1,2,3,4) - this part is a mess. it's inconsistent for which sounds or sound combinations you are using 3/4 sliders, 1/1 sliders or 1/2 sliders. examples: 00:31:846 (3) - is a 1/1-slider (that even ends on the downbeat) while 00:31:382 (1,2) - were 3/4 sliders, 00:32:772 (4) - is different from 00:31:846 (3) - and 00:32:309 (1) - even though the sounds are the same, 00:33:236 (3) - is the same sounds again but mapped differently again. similar inconsistencies happen in other sections that include a lot of extended sliders, feels like there is no logic behind most of them Slow down the music, and pay attention to where the drum ends. Violins aren't all the same length, drums don't begin/end all on the same spots.
  2. 00:37:058 (1) - why is this extended when 00:36:710 (1) - is not Same for this having the drum stuff.
  3. 00:39:490 (1,2,1,2,3,4,5) - the sudden linear jumps created by 00:39:490 (1,2,1) - , and ESPECIALLY 00:39:722 (1,2,3,4,5) - being a spaced stream feel way overdone for this calm section. the stream has significantly higher spacing than most of your other streams which happen during much more intense sections, it's a huge difficulty spike and feels out of place here Hi yes, there's a very dominating contrast between guitar and every other instrument that gets muted here. If I make this weaker, I'm saying the guitars here are definitively weak - as well as for sections in the future where other similar guitars are also dominating. In a difficulty like this, having really weak sections are made for REALLY weak sections, and solo guitars are not weak enough. If I made this too easy to play, then it would make the rest of the map surrounding this section feel more out of place. Regardless, a burst of 5 is incomparable to actual 259bpm deathstreams that happen later on.
  4. 00:40:417 (1,1,2,3,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - fullscreen jumps, even if just 130 BPM, are also a really poor choice for a calm section of a song It's 259bpm at 1/1 firstly. This goes back to my previous point of not under-doing this section. Perhaps if there were no isolated guitars here, I could see this being mapped rather calmly, though, that's not the case here and for that reason the 'jumps' exist.
  5. 01:44:587 (1,2,3,4) - should be snapped to 1/3. this is wrong in most other diffs too, though in those which don't include 1/3 it can be fine as a simplification. here it doesn't make sense because you use 1/3 at other places too This is clear 1/4...
I'm not sure how to feel about this post, it sounds incredibly nitpicky and it could do without the final comment you left.
Myxo

Kroytz wrote:

Myxomatosis wrote:

[Highest Diff]

other diffs are alright, but how the calm section is mapped in the highest diff as well as the awkward rhythm inconsistencies really bring the quality down. also the top diff is spam of huge jumps in some sections, where spacing or movement emphasis gets kinda lost. rather disappointing to still see something like that from you with the experience you have as a mapper by now I can't tell - was this supposed to be a mod post to help bring the quality of my beatmap up, or if this was typed up to antagonize my decisions and scrutinize my interpretation? I don't take lightly to 'mods' that don't provide any useful or constructive criticism, especially those that question my integrity as a mapper. To me, this all sounds like, "I don't understand why you did this, and I don't like how you did that" without providing feasible alternatives. if you need me to give alternatives for a specific thing feel free to hit me up, though i think you can come up with something yourself if you want to fix something. the intention of this post is to assure the quality of qualified beatmaps. i notice issues, i point them out, that's the purpose of the QAT since a long time. all of my criticism is constructive, i don't see how it wouldn't be.

  1. 00:30:224 (1,2,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,1,2,3,4) - this part is a mess. it's inconsistent for which sounds or sound combinations you are using 3/4 sliders, 1/1 sliders or 1/2 sliders. examples: 00:31:846 (3) - is a 1/1-slider (that even ends on the downbeat) while 00:31:382 (1,2) - were 3/4 sliders, 00:32:772 (4) - is different from 00:31:846 (3) - and 00:32:309 (1) - even though the sounds are the same, 00:33:236 (3) - is the same sounds again but mapped differently again. similar inconsistencies happen in other sections that include a lot of extended sliders, feels like there is no logic behind most of them Slow down the music, and pay attention to where the drum ends. Violins aren't all the same length, drums don't begin/end all on the same spots. i have tried hard to understand your choices here. slowing down the music doesn't help. tell me what exactly is different here 00:31:846 (3) - from 00:31:382 (1,2) - to justify a 1/1-slider here. the violin sound is not held any longer, in fact i'd argue it's held slightly shorter. 00:32:309 (1) - vs 00:33:236 (3) -vs. 00:32:772 (4) - all of these sounds are held until the white tick, so exactly the same length too. also what do you mean with drums ending? there are cymbal sounds here which fade out gradually, they don't end on a specific spot
  2. 00:37:058 (1) - why is this extended when 00:36:710 (1) - is not Same for this having the drum stuff. fine
  3. 00:39:490 (1,2,1,2,3,4,5) - the sudden linear jumps created by 00:39:490 (1,2,1) - , and ESPECIALLY 00:39:722 (1,2,3,4,5) - being a spaced stream feel way overdone for this calm section. the stream has significantly higher spacing than most of your other streams which happen during much more intense sections, it's a huge difficulty spike and feels out of place here Hi yes, there's a very dominating contrast between guitar and every other instrument that gets muted here. If I make this weaker, I'm saying the guitars here are definitively weak - as well as for sections in the future where other similar guitars are also dominating. In a difficulty like this, having really weak sections are made for REALLY weak sections, and solo guitars are not weak enough. If I made this too easy to play, then it would make the rest of the map surrounding this section feel more out of place. Regardless, a burst of 5 is incomparable to actual 259bpm deathstreams that happen later on. thing is if there is one strong instrument and everything else in the song is weak the section still feels weak in the music most of the time, weaker than a section where everything including the beat is more intense, and you're not showing that difference if you map them the same intensity because one instrument's intensity matches
  4. 00:40:417 (1,1,2,3,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - fullscreen jumps, even if just 130 BPM, are also a really poor choice for a calm section of a song It's 259bpm at 1/1 firstly. This goes back to my previous point of not under-doing this section. Perhaps if there were no isolated guitars here, I could see this being mapped rather calmly, though, that's not the case here and for that reason the 'jumps' exist. 130 BPM 1/2 is the same as 260 BPM 1/1, i refered to them as 130 BPM jumps because jumps are usually thought of as halfbeat rhythms. my explanation is similar to the previous point
  5. 01:44:587 (1,2,3,4) - should be snapped to 1/3. this is wrong in most other diffs too, though in those which don't include 1/3 it can be fine as a simplification. here it doesn't make sense because you use 1/3 at other places too This is clear 1/4... you are right, not sure what i heard there yesterday
I'm not sure how to feel about this post, it sounds incredibly nitpicky and it could do without the final comment you left.
If I would've been "nitpicky" with this map this mod would've looked veeery different. I left the global emphasis issues as a comment because I didn't expect you to adress them, even though they make the map low quality in my personal view, instead I pointed out the most specific and striking flaws yet you write them off as nitpicks. I'm not fine with the responses and I'd like further discussion about these points, especially the intensity of the calmer sections and the extended sliders (please refer to the examples i've given on the matter instead of just talking globally).

Also, don't forget to reply MaridiuS' points.
_handholding
top diff name feels inappropriate and far from professional to use in the ranked section
PoNo

Myxomatosis wrote:

[PoNo's]

  1. 00:29:934 - feels weird to not map this note as it belongs to the stream in the music I've done this cause of the guitar sound, it stop right on this note, And also I don't know if theres a real sound on this particular note, I don't hear it maybe.. but it's fine in my opinion.
  2. 01:03:583 (1,2,3) - due to the low spacing between these there is almost no emphasis here, feels very underwhelming. 01:04:510 I've managed to make a different spacing cause of this low pitched sound on 01:04:046 (3) - , the 3 sliders can't really be consistent for me when theres such a high difference on the (3) in the music and also the cymbal sound you mentionned next to this.

    (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1) - also feels a bit underwhelming because the strong cymbals on every second white tick aren't emphasized in any way Inverting the shape of a stream isn't an emphasis method? Anyway if the problem is to add some spacing in the stream i'm not totally okay cause of the difficulty. But maybe I just missunderstanded what you've pointed out, let me know.
  3. 01:21:536 (3,4) - movement between these feels unintuitive, cause 01:21:420 (2) - makes the player expect a stack or atleast low spacing after the 3/4-slider The whole part from 01:11:923 (1) - to 01:23:969 (1) - is mapped with a lot of stacks and the gameplay is more oriented on readibility, so I don't really understand why this one in particular would be problem..
Mao
Disqualifying this before it hits ranked for discussion. Please reply to MaridiuS' mod as well.
Ascendance
why does everything have to be 9* unplayable sv pacific jumps
Nevo
Anime
DiceSA
zzz. try plugging in headphones before modding it helps.
Otosaka-Yu
wtf???????
Gandalphf

Kisses wrote:

top diff name feels inappropriate and far from professional to use in the ranked section

lol
Topic Starter
Kroytz
Okay Dkun, I apologize. We can start over again:

In regards to your first point with 00:30:224 (1,2,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,1,2,3,4) - I remember as I mapped it, I heard what you heard, but I extended it only because I didn't want the player to have to play a triple after. I didn't think it'd be such an issue but because it is apparently, I decide to reduce the slider by 1/4 and removed my triple because I think that would be too hard to play (because the next slider has a double) and instead I used 1/2 circles.

and then with this one: "00:39:490 (1,2,1,2,3,4,5) - the sudden linear jumps created by 00:39:490 (1,2,1) - , and ESPECIALLY 00:39:722 (1,2,3,4,5) - being a spaced stream feel way overdone for this calm section. the stream has significantly higher spacing than most of your other streams which happen during much more intense sections, it's a huge difficulty spike and feels out of place here"

I remember having a conversation with some people before, about instrument isolation and I believe it comes down to one of two things: 1) because there are less instruments, the spacing/intensity should be less. or 2) because the instruments have no background sounds, they are the predominant sounds to highlight or emphasize. The latter is something i like to do depending on the situation. In this scenario, there's already low spacing with the 1/3's, so to create a bit of contrast I wanted to space 1/4s with the guitar. to me that spacing helps lead in to the bigger spacing you mentioned later because otherwise, it'd feel out of place progressively from small space->bigger spacing->biggest spacing which is what I have here.
Topic Starter
Kroytz

MaridiuS wrote:

"00:37:058 (1) - why is this extended when 00:36:710 (1) - is not" first one seems to end on a drum so it seems justified

With the rest I agree and I have additional concerns regarding top diff

  1. When using such large spacing as a basis, nothing is really emphasized. Using just minimal spacing difference to "emphasize" a note doesn't work in such huge spacing because they play essentially the same. The most obvious example is here for example 00:54:085 (6,7,1) - . The (1) marks the first downbeat in addition to being loud with the guitar, cymbal and whatnot but it's spacing is just sligthly higher than the basis of the section. Some are kinda justified because the movement is hard for sliders like 00:51:421 (1) - .Because it's made like this there's nothing for the player to look forward to, everything is just spaced a lot. Density and spacing is what separates difficulties. If you don't like the density or spacing of this diff, there are lower diffs to play. It would of course be ludicrous to make everything balls-to-the-wall crazy with spacing because then it's hard to justify where the strong and weak moments are. However, I believe I did make contrast enough throughout the map. The first kiai is audibly stronger than the later parts of the map which is why the 2nd half isn't really mapped all that crazy save for the last kick slider section. It's the main reason why it's so heavily spaced, the guitars are much more emphatic and the drums are constantly rolling. Much of the stuff before the kiai was also spaced a bit similar but to a lower degree because I wanted the progression to be a bit more ,well, progressive. having too close spacing before and really high spacing would be a bit out of place because then one would say, 'why is the kiai so spaced from the earlier parts? space it less' etc. to me, it's all about progression here.

Some more case to case for that concern: 00:50:610 (1) - This slider here starts the big section yet it has lower spacing than the circle before it and also comfortable movement which leaves the note not emphasized at all except by rhythm.

  1. 00:47:830 (1,1,1,1) - These are not emphasized at all except by rhythm. With low spacing and 1/2 gaps without circles they're significantly easier to do than the rest of the section when it should be vise versa. I'm sorry but are you blind? Don't say 'not emphasized at all' when the most glaring thing I did here was increase the SV by a vast amount
  2. 00:48:988 (2,3,1) - and 00:49:452 (2,3,1) - are really nice and feel nice because they have proper contrast from the weaker and stronger notes.
  3. 00:52:232 (6,1) - Because of your huge overall spacing slider to slider patterns are incomparably easier because in the grid you cannot use more spacing to balance the difficulty with spacing since the rhythm makes it easier. So in this part the (1) is much easier to do than its counterparts, its same spacing except its slider to slider now.
  4. 01:45:050 (6,1) - In this section this is the only example in which you emphasized the (1) with such awkward movement. Compare it to 01:46:209 (1) - (whose emphasis is in minus) and 01:47:019 (1) - which is quite comfortable you can easily see the inconsistency. I can suggest making it all to awkward movement but that would be such a pain on this bpm, so the safest way is just to simple emphasize it with spacing and make it consisent. Currently the section seems like a mess tbh because nothing is really consistent. I think you're just looking a bit deeper than what is actually intended. The latter is just a pure pattern, you can highlight all the objects together and see it's a pattern, separation or consistency through spacing isn't my intention. The same goes for the former pattern but because there are kick sliders being used, there's a bit more opportunity to make for some nicer visuals, which was also that intention as it does play like a strict pattern too. I'm not looking for spacing-emphasis-consistency or what have you because it all becomes too convoluted when dealing with set patterns.
Rhythmic concerns

  1. 00:50:610 - This section is emphasizing drums. I don't think the kicks are pratically that audible or important compared to the solo guitar which you randomly decide to follow like here 00:52:000 (5,6) - . Idk I can't offer many opinions here I just feel like its a miss to map over the solo guitar on plenty of places like 00:51:073 (1) - 00:53:853 (4,6) - 00:55:012 (5) - etc. I suppose its a matter of preference. I find the guitar rhythms to be too spastic to follow accurately, and because of the spacing, i find it to be a bit simpler to play if the rhythm was also simplified outside of the guitar melody.
  2. 01:36:131 (2) - and 01:36:362 (2) - This is really indistinct compared to 01:36:016 (1,1) - . In the section you tend to map the solo guitar so i dont understand how do those fairly inaudible sounds warrant active rhythm. 01:40:185 (4) - Here you end on such a guitar note. I think two people mentioned this to me now, and I say the same thing: it's a distinct pattern, the rhythm is being missed here for intentional purpose due to patterning.
  3. 01:46:556 (1,2,1,2) - And more such examples in which (2)'s are muuch weaker than (1)'s but both are mapped actively and with same spacing. It's just a pattern... The spacing reflects the pitch was the idea but moreso that these are strict patterns.
Other stuff

  1. 01:52:463 (1) - and 01:34:626 (1) - I literally do not understand why must you put in this SV, nobody enjoys this and as like kanzaki pointed out, Mlaw couldn't even play it on HT properly. Players have no control over this sliders, they just look cool but they offer the most annoying gameplay experience where you have to hit it in such perfect timing window and then move the cursor accordingly in order to play it "properly". It won't even be proper because the players will surely not move with the curves of the sliders. You play this like a sideways V. Someone say Mlaw can't hit this but I've seen many other players still keep combo. I don't get the point, a sample size of 1 or 10 is arbitrary. It plays like a sideways V, that's all there is to it. Crazy guitars = crazy sliders.
  2. 01:41:807 (2,3,4,5,6,7) - The drums kick in 01:42:039 (4,5,6,7) - yet they get 0 emphasis with this descent in spacing. If the guitar is dropping in intensity but drums are raising it isn't as 1dimensional as to just follow guitar layer, when following the drums will be much more stimulating and exciting. where do you hear the drums raising? the drums are the same volume throughout. I valued the drop in pitch more than the drums because drums are everywhere but you only hear this kind of pitch-decrease once in this song, I think that's worth following.
spacing spacing spacing spacing spacing
Topic Starter
Kroytz
> Added soft-sliderslide6
> Added soft-hitnormal6
> Fixed a hitsound in the quiet part so that two kick sliders can get muted sliderslides
> Fixed the thing Dkun mentioned.

If there's nothing else to talk about, I'll be looking to get this renominated again.
Updated.
MaridiuS

Kroytz wrote:

MaridiuS wrote:

"00:37:058 (1) - why is this extended when 00:36:710 (1) - is not" first one seems to end on a drum so it seems justified

With the rest I agree and I have additional concerns regarding top diff

  1. When using such large spacing as a basis, nothing is really emphasized. Using just minimal spacing difference to "emphasize" a note doesn't work in such huge spacing because they play essentially the same. The most obvious example is here for example 00:54:085 (6,7,1) - . The (1) marks the first downbeat in addition to being loud with the guitar, cymbal and whatnot but it's spacing is just sligthly higher than the basis of the section. Some are kinda justified because the movement is hard for sliders like 00:51:421 (1) - .Because it's made like this there's nothing for the player to look forward to, everything is just spaced a lot. Density and spacing is what separates difficulties. If you don't like the density or spacing of this diff, there are lower diffs to play. It would of course be ludicrous to make everything balls-to-the-wall crazy with spacing because then it's hard to justify where the strong and weak moments are. However, I believe I did make contrast enough throughout the map. The first kiai is audibly stronger than the later parts of the map which is why the 2nd half isn't really mapped all that crazy save for the last kick slider section. It's the main reason why it's so heavily spaced, the guitars are much more emphatic and the drums are constantly rolling. Much of the stuff before the kiai was also spaced a bit similar but to a lower degree because I wanted the progression to be a bit more ,well, progressive. having too close spacing before and really high spacing would be a bit out of place because then one would say, 'why is the kiai so spaced from the earlier parts? space it less' etc. to me, it's all about progression here. It was not my point to compare sections to sections but rather patterns within themselves. Sections have their overall intensity but within sections you have stronger and weaker things. The issue here was that the basis of section is raised so high that those stronger parts within section don't have any real emphasis (particularly spacing). I already listed the examples for this concern.

Some more case to case for that concern: 00:50:610 (1) - This slider here starts the big section yet it has lower spacing than the circle before it and also comfortable movement which leaves the note not emphasized at all except by rhythm.

  1. 00:47:830 (1,1,1,1) - These are not emphasized at all except by rhythm. With low spacing and 1/2 gaps without circles they're significantly easier to do than the rest of the section when it should be vise versa. I'm sorry but are you blind? Don't say 'not emphasized at all' when the most glaring thing I did here was increase the SV by a vast amount Uh my bad I've written it like that but it was not what I meant. I have underestimated the difficulty of the pattern, the SV is quite fast on last 2 sliders, forget this.
  2. 00:48:988 (2,3,1) - and 00:49:452 (2,3,1) - are really nice and feel nice because they have proper contrast from the weaker and stronger notes.
  3. 00:52:232 (6,1) - Because of your huge overall spacing slider to slider patterns are incomparably easier because in the grid you cannot use more spacing to balance the difficulty with spacing since the rhythm makes it easier. So in this part the (1) is much easier to do than its counterparts, its same spacing except its slider to slider now.
  4. 01:45:050 (6,1) - In this section this is the only example in which you emphasized the (1) with such awkward movement. Compare it to 01:46:209 (1) - (whose emphasis is in minus) and 01:47:019 (1) - which is quite comfortable you can easily see the inconsistency. I can suggest making it all to awkward movement but that would be such a pain on this bpm, so the safest way is just to simple emphasize it with spacing and make it consisent. Currently the section seems like a mess tbh because nothing is really consistent. I think you're just looking a bit deeper than what is actually intended. The latter is just a pure pattern, you can highlight all the objects together and see it's a pattern, separation or consistency through spacing isn't my intention. The same goes for the former pattern but because there are kick sliders being used, there's a bit more opportunity to make for some nicer visuals, which was also that intention as it does play like a strict pattern too. I'm not looking for spacing-emphasis-consistency or what have you because it all becomes too convoluted when dealing with set patterns.tldr; emphasis and consistency don't matter?
Rhythmic concerns

  1. 00:50:610 - This section is emphasizing drums. I don't think the kicks are pratically that audible or important compared to the solo guitar which you randomly decide to follow like here 00:52:000 (5,6) - . Idk I can't offer many opinions here I just feel like its a miss to map over the solo guitar on plenty of places like 00:51:073 (1) - 00:53:853 (4,6) - 00:55:012 (5) - etc. I suppose its a matter of preference. I find the guitar rhythms to be too spastic to follow accurately, and because of the spacing, i find it to be a bit simpler to play if the rhythm was also simplified outside of the guitar melody. simplifying in a 2901894 star diff :thinking:
  2. 01:36:131 (2) - and 01:36:362 (2) - This is really indistinct compared to 01:36:016 (1,1) - . In the section you tend to map the solo guitar so i dont understand how do those fairly inaudible sounds warrant active rhythm. 01:40:185 (4) - Here you end on such a guitar note. I think two people mentioned this to me now, and I say the same thing: it's a distinct pattern, the rhythm is being missed here for intentional purpose due to patterning. tldr; rhythm of the song doesn't matter?
  3. 01:46:556 (1,2,1,2) - And more such examples in which (2)'s are muuch weaker than (1)'s but both are mapped actively and with same spacing. It's just a pattern... The spacing reflects the pitch was the idea but moreso that these are strict patterns.It doesn't really reflect the pitch I feel like because (2)'s aren't even pitched notes but get the same spacing.
Other stuff

  1. 01:52:463 (1) - and 01:34:626 (1) - I literally do not understand why must you put in this SV, nobody enjoys this and as like kanzaki pointed out, Mlaw couldn't even play it on HT properly. Players have no control over this sliders, they just look cool but they offer the most annoying gameplay experience where you have to hit it in such perfect timing window and then move the cursor accordingly in order to play it "properly". It won't even be proper because the players will surely not move with the curves of the sliders. You play this like a sideways V. Someone say Mlaw can't hit this but I've seen many other players still keep combo. I don't get the point, a sample size of 1 or 10 is arbitrary. It plays like a sideways V, that's all there is to it. Crazy guitars = crazy sliders.
  2. 01:41:807 (2,3,4,5,6,7) - The drums kick in 01:42:039 (4,5,6,7) - yet they get 0 emphasis with this descent in spacing. If the guitar is dropping in intensity but drums are raising it isn't as 1dimensional as to just follow guitar layer, when following the drums will be much more stimulating and exciting. where do you hear the drums raising? the drums are the same volume throughout. I valued the drop in pitch more than the drums because drums are everywhere but you only hear this kind of pitch-decrease once in this song, I think that's worth following.well they have a change in snare volume here 01:42:039 (4,5) - but it appears i was using a bad musical device at the time since its just two notes rather than ascending of intensity.
spacing spacing spacing spacing spacing
Topic Starter
Kroytz
TL;DR - You value things differently than me. Anything else?
Myxo
i am fine with your reply to my points
sytho
00:18:062 make these stack on the slider
You are not allowed to edit the .osu file
Topic Starter
Kroytz
It's just placed lower my dude .-.
Kuron-kun
back

since myxo and maridius seem to be okay with the points, guess we can get back into this
MaridiuS
I wasn't okay, I didn't post anywhere saying, or even remotely suggesting that.

A map which doesn't follow the song's rhythm for the sake of some "patterning" isn't something to be pushed for ranked imo. Same argument was used for emphasis and consistency (Patterning, aesthetics). This just doesn't make sense because a map should be made with given music, not make something out of nothing. I can understand valuing aesthetics as much as other aspects, but putting it so much above rhythm or emphasis doesn't really work in a rhythm game, it belongs in a museum.

Veto only goes to kuron-kun since I didn't report the map in the first place I can't veto for both nominators as a DQ veto.
Nevo

MaridiuS wrote:

doesn't really work in a rhythm game, it belongs in a museum.
:(
DiceSA
Kroytz better don his hat and whip
Net0
The only rhythm valid reason to veto this map would be this 1-2 idea here; 01:36:131 (2) – /01:36:362 (2) – and 01:46:556 (1,2,1,2)

Kroytz wrote:

“It's just a pattern... The spacing reflects the pitch was the idea but moreso that these are strict patterns.”
As I said when I suggested the hitsounds changes, you need to actually make this pattern have proper feedback since this is not what the song is doing rhythm wise the 1-2 idea. However, that’s it, the rest of MaridiuS points I totally disagree being veto worthy;

MaridiuS wrote:

“The issue here was that the basis of section is raised so high that those stronger parts within section don't have any real emphasis (particularly spacing).”
Consistent spacing can still give proper emphasis with movement/reading, as long as the mapper do something even small flow/reading tricks or increase the spacing a bit, is fair enough. Some people think that emphasis needs drastic changes but that’s just a personal mapping preference, if he wants to go generic let him do it.

MaridiuS wrote:

“01:45:050 (6,1)- In this section this is the only example in which you emphasized the (1) with such awkward movement. Compare it to 01:46:209 (1)- (whose emphasis is in minus) and 01:47:019 (1)- which is quite comfortable you can easily see the inconsistency. “
Inconsistency regarding different sounds on the song? 01:45:166 (1) – and 01:47:019 (1) – are similar indeed and they play very similar and also have similar spacing considering 01:45:050 (6,1) – and 01:46:904 (2,1) – but 01:46:209 (1) –is different and SHOULD NOT play/feel the same way as the other mentioned objects.

MaridiuS wrote:

“00:50:610- This section is emphasizing drums. I don't think the kicks are pratically that audible or important compared to the solo guitar which you randomly decide to follow like here 00:52:000 (5,6)- . “
Except the map is following the guitar in other parts as well? The 1/1 sliders are clearly following the melody(guitar) and it’s really strong on the song/map 00:51:421 (1) -/ 00:52:463 (1) - / 00:53:274 (1) – so he’s not switching to guitar at random as you said. Also if he doesn’t follow the kicks what sort of rhythm suggestion you have? I didn’t see you placing circles/sliders and providing a better idea anywhere on the mod post.

He did a very usual ½ spam and placed hitsounds according to what he’s following, if you have rhythm suggestions you need to be more clear with the suggestion in the first place, saying you didn’t like but not showing how do you think it’s better done is pointless and not veto worth it. Personally I wouldn’t map like this myself, but it’s not my map.

MaridiuS wrote:

“01:41:807 (2,3,4,5,6,7)- The drums kick in 01:42:039 (4,5,6,7)- yet they get 0 emphasis with this descent in spacing.”
The melody decrease in intensity starts to decrease with 01:41:807 (2) -, aren’t you the one who said he should give proper priority to the guitar instead of drums? This pattern is doing precisely that by ignoring the introduction of the drum on 01:42:039 (4) – and mapping the guitar pitch decrease with the entire pattern 01:41:807 (2,3,4,5,6,7) - ,

With that being said, is quite incredulous a mod that is not consistent with itself by saying the mapper to apply x idea at some parts and just deny that idea on the next suggestion.

MaridiuS wrote:

“doesn't really work in a rhythm game, it belongs in a museum.”
You know what should be in a museum? The mentality that “My way of mapping is better than yours”

Just look at the ranked category, we have Rendezvous, PP Compilation and DJPop’s Hitorigoto ranked in the last two months. Three maps that at their very core are completely and undeniably so different considering what elements were used to create a game level that relates to the song they’re mapping, also offering such different gameplay experiences. I’m glad by that because, if you don’t know yet, the community is big and there’s a player base for each of this maps.

If you were to force concept comparisons (aesthetics, spacing, emphasis, etc), those maps could never coexist in the ranked category, so I strongly advice you to not veto maps based on this personal preference of yours. Forcing people to map towards “x” “y” concept and not “z” shouldn’t be encouraged and only shows a person who don’t understand anything beyond their own mapping ideas, therefore, should not be a reason for a veto. As long as the map shows what concepts were used, how they’re used, proved it’s not amateurish executed, mappers shouldn’t be disallowed to map towards any style/structure they want to go for.

Feel free to disagree with me, but instead of just saying things behind my back or mock a group of mappers (like you did in the past with a certain nationality of mappers), state your arguments here. Also, try to be polite and not sarcastic since I didn’t offend/went sarcastic anywhere on this post o/
MaridiuS
net0, a mapper like kroytz should know that using a slider instead 2 circles will make the (1) I was talking about emphasized by rhythm. Works in both sections for example on those guitars like 00:53:853 (4,6) - could be made into 2 sliders instead of the current arrangement. Or he could make these into 01:36:016 (1,1) - 2 sliders. But kroytz is aware that he's not following them and is doing that intentionally for the "strict patterning". He switched to guitar on random here 00:52:000 (5,6) - .

Regarding “01:41:807 (2,3,4,5,6,7)- The drums kick in 01:42:039 (4,5,6,7)- yet they get 0 emphasis with this descent in spacing.” I dismissed it, it was my bad point completely unrelated to the veto.

Consistent spacing can still give proper emphasis with movement/reading, as long as the mapper do something even small flow/reading tricks or increase the spacing a bit, is fair enough. Some people think that emphasis needs drastic changes but that’s just a personal mapping preference, if he wants to go generic let him do it.
-->Net0, even if he did those "small things" it's a much better idea to try to explain them than simply go with "I went with patterning/aesthetics over that" or something like that. You're saying what I have expected him to say and it probably would be much different if he did rather than his responses and would have more room for discussion. Once he said it doesn't matter, he doesn't value it or the like and the discussion ends. The meaning of emphasis is to make something have special importance, something distinct, small things is definitely not a special distinction. Usually mappers just do a little bit for the sake of arguing and defending that "it's emphasized" when the fact is, it is not emphasized enough.

Just look at the ranked category, we have Rendezvous, PP Compilation and DJPop’s Hitorigoto ranked in the last two months. Three maps that at their very core are completely and undeniably so different considering what elements were used to create a game level that relates to the song they’re mapping, also offering such different gameplay experiences. I’m glad by that because, if you don’t know yet, the community is big and there’s a player base for each of this maps.
-->Let's not discuss different maps, I myself have tried dq modding PP comp so using that as argument will only make it worse for you. There are countless variables that go with every different map.

If you were to force concept comparisons (aesthetics, spacing, emphasis, etc), those maps could never coexist in the ranked category, so I strongly advice you to not veto maps based on this personal preference of yours. Forcing people to map towards “x” “y” concept and not “z” shouldn’t be encouraged and only shows a person who don’t understand anything beyond their own mapping ideas, therefore, should not be a reason for a veto. As long as the map shows what concepts were used, how they’re used, proved it’s not amateurish executed, mappers shouldn’t be disallowed to map towards any style/structure they want to go for.
-->If a mapping idea is to make the map look good without priority into rhythm or emphasis then anything can go as long as it looks good enough. Aesthetics is not a primary way to represent a song, it just complements the maps ideas. I'm pretty sure its not just my preference but a preference of a larger portion of the mapping community to agree that rhythm and emphasis take priority over aesthetics.

Regarding the rest, I feel like I have enough in the posts already, and regarding your ending message... uh is this you trying to provoke me or make the discussion healthier?
Net0

MaridiuS wrote:

net0, a mapper like kroytz should know that using a slider instead 2 circles will make the (1) I was talking about emphasized by rhythm. Works in both sections for example on those guitars like 00:53:853 (4,6) - could be made into 2 sliders instead of the current arrangement. Or he could make these into 01:36:016 (1,1) - 2 sliders. But kroytz is aware that he's not following them and is doing that intentionally for the "strict patterning". He switched to guitar on random here 00:52:000 (5,6) - .
Already pointed why it wasn't random and you didn't explain why it is random/gave a suggestion regarding the rhythm for this section; 00:50:610 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,1) -
You actually posted a new time stamp not mentioned before on 00:53:853 (4,6) - when your original mod post was about the previous part. Also why are you making a suggestion on the rhythm of 00:53:853 (4,5,6,7) - as two sliders when both 00:53:969 (5,7) - are also strong enough for clickable rhythm? Not to mention this has no relation to the 1-2 patterns on 01:36:016 (1,2,1,2) -


Regarding “01:41:807 (2,3,4,5,6,7)- The drums kick in 01:42:039 (4,5,6,7)- yet they get 0 emphasis with this descent in spacing.” I dismissed it, it was my bad point completely unrelated to the veto.Okay

Consistent spacing can still give proper emphasis with movement/reading, as long as the mapper do something even small flow/reading tricks or increase the spacing a bit, is fair enough. Some people think that emphasis needs drastic changes but that’s just a personal mapping preference, if he wants to go generic let him do it.
-->Net0, even if he did those "small things" it's a much better idea to try to explain them than simply go with "I went with patterning/aesthetics over that" or something like that. You're saying what I have expected him to say and it probably would be much different if he did rather than his responses and would have more room for discussion. Once he said it doesn't matter, he doesn't value it or the like and the discussion ends. The meaning of emphasis is to make something have special importance, something distinct, small things is definitely not a special distinction. Usually mappers just do a little bit for the sake of arguing and defending that "it's emphasized" when the fact is, it is not emphasized enough. What's emphasized enough? Making screen cross jump contrast with 0,1x SV? There's no "right" amount of contrast, what's needed it's the contrast itself, be it using moviment contrast/ be it being visual distinction, be it being spacing, etc.

Just look at the ranked category, we have Rendezvous, PP Compilation and DJPop’s Hitorigoto ranked in the last two months. Three maps that at their very core are completely and undeniably so different considering what elements were used to create a game level that relates to the song they’re mapping, also offering such different gameplay experiences. I’m glad by that because, if you don’t know yet, the community is big and there’s a player base for each of this maps.
-->Let's not discuss different maps, I myself have tried dq modding PP comp so using that as argument will only make it worse for you. There are countless variables that go with every different map. Yes there are a lot of variables that go with every different map, that's why you just proved I'm right when I said you can't force concepts comparisions on every map like you're doing with spacing on this difficulty.

If you were to force concept comparisons (aesthetics, spacing, emphasis, etc), those maps could never coexist in the ranked category, so I strongly advice you to not veto maps based on this personal preference of yours. Forcing people to map towards “x” “y” concept and not “z” shouldn’t be encouraged and only shows a person who don’t understand anything beyond their own mapping ideas, therefore, should not be a reason for a veto. As long as the map shows what concepts were used, how they’re used, proved it’s not amateurish executed, mappers shouldn’t be disallowed to map towards any style/structure they want to go for.
-->If a mapping idea is to make the map look good without priority into rhythm or emphasis then anything can go as long as it looks good enough.Of course not, you're talking like this map has 0 relation to the songs rhythm and in reality, out of the 2 minutes drain of the song there's only ONE pattern you're using to fundament your veto, that being the 1-2 patterns on; 01:36:016 (1,2,1,2,1,2,3) - /01:37:869 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - , so don't make it sound like this map dismiss the song because it doesn't, at least not in the amount you're implying Aesthetics is not a primary way to represent a song, it just complements the maps ideas. I'm pretty sure its not just my preference but a preference of a larger portion of the mapping community to agree that rhythm and emphasis take priority over aesthetics.If that was true Rendezvous should have been ranked without making such fuzz since the map was legit all about emphasis and rhythm and no concerns with visuals. There's no consensuous in mapping but we do try to avoid extreme things and I'm sure this map is really far from pushing the limits of what we can consider rankable content

Regarding the rest, I feel like I have enough in the posts already, and regarding your ending message... uh is this you trying to provoke me or make the discussion healthier?It's me warning you that I know of previous improper behavior coming from you, so I was purelly asking you to avoid such things.
Topic Starter
Kroytz
Did I not just say you and I value things differently? If what you're veto'ing is because you don't like how I value patterns/aesthetics over 'following the song' (which at its' core is subjective through personal values in mapping), then go ahead and have fun wasting your time veto'ing everything by me. You're not doing justice here by trying to force me to change my mapping style or my values. If there's nothing tangible here that helps me improve what I've provided for my map, then I'll continue to push this forward as per usual
MaridiuS

Kroytz wrote:

Did I not just say you and I value things differently? If what you're veto'ing is because you don't like how I value patterns/aesthetics over 'following the song' (which at its' core is subjective through personal values in mapping), then go ahead and have fun wasting your time veto'ing everything by me. You're not doing justice here by trying to force me to change my mapping style or my values. If there's nothing tangible here that helps me improve what I've provided for my map, then I'll continue to push this forward as per usual
If you have provided how your rhythm or emphasis follow the song we might have simply reached a compromise. But at this point it's like allowing you to do whatever you want with the editor and make it ranked because it looks cool. You can easily make patterns that look nicely or w/e while still abiding to rhythm or emphasis aspects. There are countless ways to make a pattern which is why I don't understand how do aesthetics/patterns go above those elements of mapping. You will simply need to rearrange the objects a bit and think of a new good looking pattern which is always possible.

Net0, you're trying to defend the map with arguments Kroytz should bring but he insists not to because those were maybe not his intentions.
DiceSA
think kroytz is more tired of the constant implication that he has no concern or awareness of rhythm, when if that was the case it would be so blindingly obvious that nobody would need to have this discussion.
Topic Starter
Kroytz

MaridiuS wrote:

doesn't really work in a rhythm game, it belongs in a museum.
Maridius, can you just look at this from an unprofessional standpoint. As a casual player seeing this map randomly in a multi or finding it in ranked section he will just go "YO LOOOL WTFF IS THIS MAP XXDXDDXDXDXD" . osu! is not the most serious of games and personally having one of this once in a while only makes people happier.

It is not making fun of anything, it is not abusing anything, it's just a fun map mapped to the best of mappers extent.
MaridiuS

Kroytz wrote:

MaridiuS wrote:

doesn't really work in a rhythm game, it belongs in a museum.
Maridius, can you just look at this from an unprofessional standpoint. As a casual player seeing this map randomly in a multi or finding it in ranked section he will just go "YO LOOOL WTFF IS THIS MAP XXDXDDXDXDXD" . osu! is not the most serious of games and personally having one of this once in a while only makes people happier.

It is not making fun of anything, it is not abusing anything, it's just a fun map mapped to the best of mappers extent.
What does this have to do with anything? I cannot see a way for those maps to be mapped better with the given sounds so there's no mapping quality / song following concern. They followed the weird song to the beat ;d.
-Master-

The thing is, if you want to pair art with music, go ahead, but at least pair it with the music.


You basically said you don't take the game seriously.
Do you think there's several rules and guidelines, a whole team of quality ensurance in this ranking system because "It isn't that serious"?

Like said, ranked maps are made to bring an overall quality look to the game, imagine if every 10 maps one has questionable rhythm sections just because "LOL LOL XD XD WTF MAP RANKED WOW", the game will eventually be more and more a joke than a fun thing.

There is a freaking section for novelty maps for this exact reason.

You shouldn't push things that even yourself don't consider serious to an actually serious system.
A big freaking thanks to people like you.

/s
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply