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/