CDFA wrote:

Especially with these lower difficulties. Like oh man having a 1/1 slider with 2 repeats on it that's really fucking enjoyable lmao.

Mishima Yurara wrote:

oh my Goodnessssssss Krotyz on osu u saw this map 3 yrs ago Dont lie....................................................

Kroytz wrote:

Mishima Yurara wrote:

oh my Goodnessssssss Krotyz on osu u saw this map 3 yrs ago Dont lie....................................................

ok but can you tell me what the map is following lmaooooo

Nevo wrote:

I actually did read the thread and it's basically the same reasons as before 🤔

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.

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.

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.

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.

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) -

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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:

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.

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.

Karen wrote:

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

AyanokoRin wrote:

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.

1. I do have some concerns to state but that will come later. Firtly though, I'd like to point out that the mapper has ignored a lot of previous mod posts, here's and example of a couple of mods being absolutely ignored but credited (kudosu'd) for some reason p/4094135 and p/4096283 . Mismagius' mod being ignored was actually quite a shame, mostly because of the fact that all the things he mentioned are still relevant to the map itself today. Nothing much has changed, plus the mod being ignored breaks the 12th Beatmap nominator rule for nominations, If the mapper doesn't respond then the map will have to be DQ'd for at least a forced response. It's a shame that the BN's involved in this set haven't read through the thread.
   
2. This is sort of an unproven point that I'm about to make but I strongly believe that your video offset is off by quite a large amount of ms. Considering the music changes at 00:10:641 (1) - is fine, but the videos theme doesn't change until ~00:10:703- . Another example of this can be seen at 01:33:640 (9) - where the frame change doesn't happen till ~01:33:723 - .I'm not sure how accurate the video files have to be nor where the original video comes from, but according to the RC video files need to accurately represent the song hence why the offset needs to be adjusted for the video files. If the video was custom made for this map then those points above are just some of the examples that misrepresent the song because of pretty big delays. Again without a original source of the video this point stands invalid, but I'm requesting for you to link the original video file from, or alternatively answer why the delays are so big because the song doesn't show such delays in the music.

1. 00:08:141 (2,3) - I can kinda see why you're ignoring the blue tick sounds on notes like this, this is fine imo but following that logic you're making 00:08:641 (5) - feel out of place. In my understanding you're following the piano here so to make (5) match it's musical strength, I think it would be better if you 00:08:308 (3,4) - ctrl+g this pattern that way the the (3) would receive the lower intensity because of the song dying out on the piano and from that point onwards (4) and (5) would be represented in a increasing spacing manner which would show more clearly what you're trying to map to. Considering something similar was done here 00:09:641 (3,4) - with (5) having the highest impact on the gameplay. Another solution to keeping your ds constant at notes like these would be to do something similar to this that way consistency would be kept alongside the next pattern.
2. 00:49:974 (3,4,5,6,7,8) - although I see that one of the themes of the map is based around readability, it still makes it un-readable even to the best players (that haven't been familiar with the song). This is mostly due to the fact that this pattern shares really similar spacing with 00:30:307 (1,2,3,4,5) - and I'm guessing you wanted to make this pattern stand out as a 1/3 stream by increasing the spacing, but because it's so similar to the 30 second mark pattern it makes the pattern almost impossible to distinguish from a 1/4 to a 1/3. I would suggest you to do something similar like you did in the Sayaka diff 00:49:974 (1,1,1,1,1,1) - but I can see that you wanted this diff to be a bit more of a old-school reading challenge. So instead I would suggest that you either decrease the spacing at 00:30:307 (1,2,3,4,5) - just by a little (this would affect quite a lot more of the patterns as well) another option would be to increasing the spacing of 00:49:974 (3,4,5,6,7,8) - by a much bigger amount so that the players will more clearly know that this pattern is spaced higher therefore will expect something different without being too familiar with the song.
3. 01:21:307 (4) - There's a change of hitsounding sample through-out the slider here, not sure if that was intended because it still follows similar sounds from the 01:21:307 (4) - so I suppose leaving it on the normal sample and just decreasing the volume would be much better than changing a sample through-out the slider
4. 01:52:640 (3,4) - These circles are really unexpected considering their spacing and placement, mostly because this is a first for such 1/4 patterns in this map. Although it fits in it's section I think you could have introduced it in a much calmer way in the previous song section here 01:46:307 (1,2) - by adding a circle on the blue tick (at which there is a sound) in a manner that will introduce the player to the coming up patterns, this is in a much calmer section as well so doing this is a calm way of showing what's coming

1. 00:22:307 (6) - out of all the patterns that emphasise the strong piano sound ( 00:20:307 (3,1) - like these do for example) only this one stands out because of it's absurd spacing. I can see that you are forming a star pattern with these note placements but imo the spacing of (6) is too much and it clearly doesn't fit the intended intensity that you were going for in this section, it's only this one that really stands out on it's own. This makes your structure and pattern placement seem rather random which is why i suggest you to re-arrange the pattern a little so that it matches with the rest of the sections patterns and their intended intensities. I suggest you to ctrl+g 00:22:307 (6,7) - that way the flow change onto 00:22:640 (1) - with the new sounds will be much more noticed and the intensity on (6) will be much more matching to the rest of the patterns beforehand
2. 00:37:640 (1,2,3,4) - this pattern is the only one which follows different flow from the rest of the patterns like 00:35:640 (1,2,3,4) - etc. It doesn't makes sense considering that the music hasn't changed it's melody still at this point therefore keeping the flow the same would reflect that as well as the rest of the patterns did. I would suggest you change it and maybe place it something similar to this, I see no reason why this flow should change considering what the music offers hasn't changed and is just ruining your theme of symmetry
3. 00:42:390 (6,7) - Up until this point in the map there was no indication that this sort of extreme jump was going to happen, on top of that the representation of the pattern is really poor, but although it's represented poorly your theme was to make the map read and not played I suppose. I can agree with this to some degree considering that the next section afterwards is the "technical" part of the map, where a lot of fast sliders are used according to the music. But then again I can't agree with the spacing you have used considering how 00:42:140 (3) - you mapped such a similar sound (almost identical) with such low spacing and emphasis and 00:42:474 (7) - this sound with such high spacing which was almost identical to (3) in terms of the music. The fact that the slider leads onto another section is one thing, but 00:42:474 (7) - is still not in the 00:42:641 (1,1) - music section so making it such a jump doesn't fit considering how intense the previous section was. I strongly suggest you nerf this spacing by a lot, placing the note at x:132 y:332 actually makes it seem really justified and much more playable. You could also consider NC'ing this object so that the lead into 00:42:641 (1) - makes more sense and new stuff will be more expected.
4. 01:40:973 (13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20) - these sounds also have these "bends" every 1/4 ticks like 01:35:640 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - I would suggest you to actually show that in the second patternbecause comparing that pattern to 01:39:973 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12) - really makes (13) seem really bland even though music suggests this to be otherwise. I am mainly suggesting this because you've only represented this sort of sound once in such a way and because this is the new section doing something similar to 01:27:640 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - woudn't fit here
5. 01:54:890 (8,1) - the way you spaced this pattern is really wrong, this is especially heard when compared to the music. The blue tick sound at 01:54:890 (8) - has the least intense sound out of all 01:54:307 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - therefore spacing (8) higher makes no sense. I would suggest you to decrease the spacing here to something that will represent the music better, also if the change is made then move 01:55:140 (2) - to have consistent spacing with the rest of the piano sounds that you are following there.
6. 01:56:973 (1) - Although the piano sound is really strong here it really makes it overspaced this is especially seen when comparing to the next pattern at 01:58:973 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - which has higher intense piano sounds which feels really underspaced. I think ctrl+g'ing 01:56:973 (1,2) - this pattern will give (1)
   better spacing making it feel more comfortable and fitting with the ending section as well as making 01:57:307 (1) - more emphasised

Kuron-kun wrote:

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.

soulfear wrote:

Kuron-kun wrote:

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.

Before you guys post mod posts,please read the old pages of the topic,there are may the same mod of yours,and also Me&Charles445 responed them already,it's no need to answer again again and again,and now here is AM 5:55,I need to sleep first qwq

Stjpa wrote:

Or just answer them because who wants to read 20+ pages? Also, if things get mentioned over and over and over, don't you think it's time to change something? Just because a lot of time passed since the last qualification with no changes made after the disqualification it doesn't mean you can just try it again without doing anything at all, of course people will point out the same things again...

soulfear wrote:

Stjpa wrote:

Or just answer them because who wants to read 20+ pages? Also, if things get mentioned over and over and over, don't you think it's time to change something? Just because a lot of time passed since the last qualification with no changes made after the disqualification it doesn't mean you can just try it again without doing anything at all, of course people will point out the same things again...

Read the whole topic is QAT&BN or good modder's work first right?

CDFA wrote:

I really don't want to sound mean since I'm legitimately not being snarky but I have no what you mean by this

soulfear wrote:

CDFA wrote:

I really don't want to sound mean since I'm legitimately not being snarky but I have no what you mean by this

Sorry,I maen,if any people don't like some parts but they're rankable,please read old pages,probably I or charles445 have responed them why I make them like that already,and also sorry about my poor English that I can't anwser them agian&again qwq

soulfear wrote:

CDFA wrote:

I really don't want to sound mean since I'm legitimately not being snarky but I have no what you mean by this

Sorry,I maen,if any people don't like some parts but they're rankable,please read old pages,probably I or charles445 have responed them why I make them like that already,and also sorry about my poor English that I can't anwser them agian&again qwq

Stjpa wrote:

The problem is with this attitude everyone could basically rank everything and just use excuses for literally everything. This game is a community-driven game so all you can do is changing what other people want to see changed, unless you manage to convince them with your explanations. If they keep questioning your ideas after explaining it to them then there is something wrong most likely. I for myself definitely wouldn't go back multiple pages just to check one out of many possible timestamps, which is understandable I suppose. But since you wanna go for Loved instead of Ranked (apparently) this discussion doesn't matter too much I guess