1. osu! forums
  2. Beatmaps
  3. Beatmap Graveyard
show more
posted
I actually did read the thread and it's basically the same reasons as before 🤔
posted

Nevo wrote:

I actually did read the thread and it's basically the same reasons as before 🤔
Wow maybe they had valid points then lmao
posted
there are things in the map that could be different indeed...
regardless of what's gonna happen, i'm glad to see this old styled map was given a chance in the qualified section ^^
posted
classical I have some concerns post

[General]
  1. Although the BG isn't an unrankable issue, 640x480 seems to be really far from all background standards nowadays, you can definitelly improve it a lot by picking fan arts or better quality backgrounds.


[Easy]
  1. Can't really see a good reason to have slidertick rate set at 2 as you are literally following the main beats and you aren't either using them to provide hitsounding feedback or anything like that, they're just there to make the combo higher. You also can only hear them clearly at the beginning and ending of the song, which are the calmest parts.
  2. Some NCing inconsistencies like:
    00:13:640 (6) - NC should be here
    00:26:640 - From this section and on some hitsounds are starting on a big white tick, some are starting on a small white tick and that makes it really inconsistent as you don't seem to be following a NC pattern. I'd really like if you could keep them consistent, that's really important for an Easy.
  3. 01:22:974 - Also could find some rhythm inconsistencies here as sometimes you follow the red beats and sometimes, without even changing the section properly, you suddenly start to map the white ticks, which might make if very awkward to play.
  4. 01:22:641 (1) - Not the best idea to start the chorus with a repeat slider, that removes all its emphasis, would be much better if the repeat was actually a circle.


[Normal]
  1. The gap between Easy spread and this one seems to be really high. You didn't use any 1/2s on Easy and you overused a lot here, with the same spacing as the 1/1s on Easy. This really looks more like an Advanced than a Normal to me.
  2. 00:48:640 (6,7,8,9) - 01:27:640 (1,2,3,4,5) - 01:38:307 (1,2,3,4,5) - Unecessary diff spike there as you've been mapping those with repeat sliders or simply with 1/1s instead of 1/2s. Making them only 1/2s circles isn't really the better option there. You should've kept them sliders or 1/1.
  3. 01:22:974 (2) - Should NC due to chorus + new section.
  4. 01:41:640 (1,1) - Recovery time, heh.You know, 1/1 recovery time with a lot of circles is kinda hard to aim for new players.


[Hard]
  1. 00:10:974 (1,2,3,4,5) - Again, unecessary diff spike, this is the calmest part of the song and yet you used a REALLY high 1/1 DS spacing.
  2. 00:34:474 (1,4) - Stacking here kind make these 2 visually overlapped.
  3. 00:52:307 - Might consider adding something here, sounds really empty as you've been following everything on the song.


[Another]
  1. Lots of inconsistent NCs as mentioned in Easy.
  2. Spacing is again really inconsistent, specially on the beginning, where you increase the spacing a lot with proper reasoning, as the song doesn't get stronger or anything at all. A few examples:
    00:09:141 (8,1,2,3,4) - 00:10:474 (8,9) - 00:54:974 (2,1,2) - 01:52:640 (3,4,5,6,7,8) -


[Sayaka]
  1. Literally everything I stated before that's not diff specific.
  2. 01:11:974 - Don't really think the song needs that huge SV suddenly. As it's literally doubling without proper build-up the flow and reading might break a lot.
  3. 01:21:308 (1) - This is literally impossible to hit sightread without breaking, if it's ever possible to hit it with a 300. The SV goes from 2,00x to 10,00x and the player won't expect that at all. If they ever expect something, it's that this is a 1/2 slider or even a 1/4 with a repeat, ending on a red tick, but this is 1/8, lol.


please don't take anything personal here, these are just things I really think they should be addressed before ranking as they might cause severe troubles to reading/flow and, specially, consistency.
posted
I can understand people saying it looks bad, but I can't understand people that don't understand what is the map following, its like so simple wtf.
posted

MaridiuS wrote:

I can understand people saying it looks bad, but I can't understand people that don't understand what is the map following, its like so simple wtf.
I have trouble understanding what you are trying to make us understand the understanding.
posted
No need to be so salty, it's just a map guys, it's just a map, chiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiill uhh
You guys are taking this game so seriously xd
posted

Cloudchaser wrote:

Even if people says that it was made in 2011, not even the maps from that time were so inconsistent as this one. And not because it's too old we should justify bad mapping, for qualify, I mean.
If all you people would actually criticize the map for all those errors that would be sweet as you might do something useful that way.
posted
qualified =/= ranked
i qualified this because i think it deserves a chance after i testplayed it, if you do think it's not suitable for being ranked, play it and explain why, stop shitplsting.

for people who compare it with loved maps:
loved section is either for maps that no bns could judge or maps that contain unrankable patterms, this map doesnt fit
posted
greetings!
there's still some part which i cannot understand, so if you're willing to explain me.

[Sayaka]

  1. 00:03:641 (8,9,1) - might be caused by grid, stack, whatever, minor thing, but I still wonder why you're using a lil higher spacing for 00:03:641 (8,9) - when the stanza is clearly on 00:03:974 (1) - . ik 00:03:974 (1) - is emphasized with your stack, however, spacing from 00:03:808 (9,1) - is the same as 00:02:641 (1,2,3,4,5) - while 00:03:641 (8,9) - is different for a reason idk.
  2. 00:07:141 (5,6) - 00:07:641 (8,9) - any reason why the structure from the 2 are really different when they are pretty similar in pitch? You're currently using a linear flow 00:06:974 (4,5,6,7) - here when 00:07:141 (5,6) - has a pretty strong piano note which is pretty similar to this one 00:07:641 (8,9) - . However, the 2nd one does have emphasis while the 1st one has none. Using a different structure could have been okay if you managed to actually use something "ascending".
  3. 00:14:640 (1,2) - according to your focus ; which is piano (i think), starting the jump 2 circles jump here 00:14:974 (3) - would have more sense since the crescendo is starting here: 00:14:974 (3) - . The stanza here 00:14:640 (1) - might justify the fact you're "breaking your flow" but the current jump doesnt really make sense with the other which are clearly mapped on the build up/crescendo.
  4. 00:15:974 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - the feeling is actually quite good/ok. However, you're currently using the same flow for a decrescendo & a build up. I'm not saying you should use the same thing when the music is the same & something different when it's different, but in this case, when it's a pattern right after the other, it only create inconsistency.
  5. 00:24:640 (1) - Using a circular flow in this case doesnt goes well with the fact the music is something like stopping right here 00:24:640 (1) - . Having the whole pattern starting from the top left from this note 00:24:474 (1) - would have more sense. 00:24:474 (1,1,2,1,2,1,2) - is just a simple circular flow with constant DS while this note 00:24:474 (1) - doesnt belong to the next part.
  6. 00:51:390 (1) - idk why the spacing emphasis is on this one. you even yourself use on whistle on this 00:51:474 (2) - for the melody. & the drum is just 1/4 earlier. even in bms they just use stairs & the jump/hand on 1/1. btw, it's even inconsistent with the fact you're currently using a spacing emphasis on 8 here 00:51:974 (8,9,10) - which is on white tick (drum kick or violon/melody)

if you can at least explain what I mentionned with a proper reasoning ; I will not have to check the whole spread.
posted
Let's keep this thread on topic, please. Remember that the posts made here must abide by the Code of Conduct.

Constructive criticism is welcome, but please explain why you feel certain parts of the map need to be changed instead of saying "this map sucks", which doesn't help anyone.
posted

Karen wrote:

qualified =/= ranked
i qualified this because i think it deserves a chance after i testplayed it, if you do think it's not suitable for being ranked, play it and explain why, stop shitplsting. ok i do agree that the shitposting needs to stop, but 80% of the posts are people asking how this even got through the process in the first place. There are now multiple mods, and I will be joining that after i post this.

for people who compare it with loved maps:
loved section is either for maps that no bns could judge or maps that contain unrankable patterms, this map doesnt fit i agree somewhat, but this map still needs a lot of work before it's even remotely ready imo.
edit: placeholder and took out some harsh words
posted

MaridiuS wrote:

Cloudchaser wrote:

Even if people says that it was made in 2011, not even the maps from that time were so inconsistent as this one. And not because it's too old we should justify bad mapping, for qualify, I mean.
If all you people would actually criticize the map for all those errors that would be sweet as you might do something useful that way.
As if it was of my business at all to actually mod this... But well, Another difficult could be done way much better. The intro, specially these parts 00:03:474 (6,7,8) - , 00:06:808 (2,3,4) - 00:08:308 (3,4,5) - just ignore the 1/4 beats but they use that rhythm here 00:10:474 (8,9) - (and it also has a ridiculous spacing too) and 00:12:807 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - as well

The another diff has a lot of patterns problem, even NCs and Hitsound, basic stuff that I don't find possible like to be qualified or something.
-> 00:26:640 - NC should be added here due of downbeats plus new rhythm marked by the finish hitsound
-> 00:26:640 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,1,2,3,4) - This part doesn't have a single jump or DS change, like "straight" patterns, but instead in 00:29:307 (1,2,3) - used jumps for the same part. It would be much better if he follows the piano.
->00:38:307 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19) - Huge combos could be useful in some cases, like streams but it also can be a misleading while playing. My suggestion is to add NC 00:39:307 - so it would have more sense with the piano.
->00:42:307 (6) - Actually this kickslider doesn't work here, the 1/4 stream begins here at 00:42:474 - until 00:42:640 -

Some parts are undermapped, other overmapped... I don't really want to post a wall.
posted

Karen wrote:

qualified =/= ranked
i qualified this because i think it deserves a chance after i testplayed it, if you do think it's not suitable for being ranked, play it and explain why, stop shitplsting.

for people who compare it with loved maps:
loved section is either for maps that no bns could judge or maps that contain unrankable patterms, this map doesnt fit
True. Let me explain few things. You found it funny after testplaying - that's great, that's 1st step, next you have to do it's to make sure it fits ranking standards -have reasonable playbility\spread\structure\proper hitsounding. On this step you could ask yourself if this beatmap structured well - it obviously lacks with randomly patterns\flow\transitions (lot of them mentioned already, even back then) pretending to be 2008 or whatever style, while as example actual "newmade old style" maps in ranked section don't. On third step you could ask yourself - hm I'm on probation period maybe that because I tend do something wrong with controversial stuff and ask for support\opinions before community apeshit on this.

Also the last one - your assumptions about Loved are wrong, if it's picked by map selectors and voted by community it can go through.

cheers, hope this helps in your bn life
posted
Cool to see this qualified again, hope it gets through this time. Pretty fun and challenging map.
posted

LowAccuracySS wrote:

Do I need to mod it? Oh, wait a minute. Whenever anybody mods it, small suggestions get fixed and major issues get a response like:


these aren't really valid mods, just saying you think the map is bad has no contribution to the improving the map, and there is nothing inherently wrong with overmapping either since mappers like skystar have made famous maps with this technique. So in some cases I can't quite agree that this map has been actually modded before if these are the kind of mods that have occurred.
posted

imbor wrote:

LowAccuracySS wrote:

Do I need to mod it? Oh, wait a minute. Whenever anybody mods it, small suggestions get fixed and major issues get a response like:


these aren't really valid mods, just saying you think the map is bad has no contribution to the improving the map, and there is nothing inherently wrong with overmapping either since mappers like skystar have made famous maps with this technique. So in some cases I can't quite agree that this map has been actually modded before if these are the kind of mods that have occurred.
fair enough. gonna mod it in a second anyway :^)
posted

imbor wrote:

LowAccuracySS wrote:

Do I need to mod it? Oh, wait a minute. Whenever anybody mods it, small suggestions get fixed and major issues get a response like:


these aren't really valid mods, just saying you think the map is bad has no contribution to the improving the map, and there is nothing inherently wrong with overmapping either since mappers like skystar have made famous maps with this technique. So in some cases I can't quite agree that this map has been actually modded before if these are the kind of mods that have occurred.
Saying just "no" , "It's my style", "it's not overmapped", it's not even close to be an excuse. The problem nowadays is that the mapper play defensive to criticism. In other hand, some BN are too mild respect to subjective aspects. So, in the end, technically for the mapper NOTHING IS WRONG, because it is the mapper's style. Where goes the modders opinion? where's the criteria? where goes the quality content?
posted
Do you guys realise that complaining about the map without bringing in any constructive criticism is completely useless ? If you do think there are issues with it, feel free to post a mod explaining why you don't think this map is fit for a ranking standard bringing in objective arguments for why the concept was not executed properly.

It's a really hard map to judge, though. You've been warned.
posted
let's just wait for any response from either the QAT or soulfear, as me and Kin provided a lot of explanation about why we find some things questionable and how they should be properly fixed.

unnecessary comments won't help with positive feedback from both parts.
show more
Please sign in to reply.