1. Red text means that the issue is unrankable.
2. Blue text is a strongly recommended suggestion.
3. Black text is a regular suggestion.

1. Shouldn't the red line be before the very first note of the beatmap? Might aswell place it at 00:59:841.
2. Well, I see you have a 1x1 blank play-skip here, and I guess it's intentional. I just think it might be better to just leave the skip-button as is, because beginners probably don't know you can skip with space, so they'll be listening to the intro all the time. This might be fairly boring after a while, especially since beginners might need several tries to pass a beatmap. Just some thoughts.
3. Add Miyamoto Konatsu and Okita Sawa to tags?

1. Tickrate 2? Sounds better imo.
2. Well, I modded hard first, and I'm kind of lazy to do hitsounds again, so if there's anything you did in [Hard], then you might as well do them here too xD
3. 01:08:478 (1) - Personal preference, but imo it doesn't look nice with the combination of this and the earlier 01:07:114 (4). Make it a straight, horizontal slider instead?
4. 01:13:023 (2) - Would feel better to stack this with (1) imo. (Of course, you'll need to fix distance snapping a bit )
5. 01:23:023 (1,2) - Swap new combo.
6. 01:42:114 (2) - Move the grey middle anchorpoint to x:72 y:288 ;_; (extend the end a bit)
7. 01:43:932 (4) - ^
8. 01:57:114 (6) - Move to x:96 y:168 (and line up 01:56:205 (4) - if you want to do that too, xD)

1. 01:06:432 (5,6) - This jump just plays weirdly for me, mostly because I can't hear anything in the music to accompany it. Maybe rearrange like this?
   
   SPOILER

   
2. 01:06:659 (6,7,8,9) - Try add whistles at 01:07:114 | 01:08:023 | 01:08:250 with reduced volume?
3. 01:11:887 (3) - clap on sliderhead.
4. 01:12:341 (4,5) - New combo on either of these?
5. 01:12:569 (5,7) - I would swap the claps to the 1st and 3rd note here, to accompany the song.
6. 01:14:387 (2) - Add clap?
7. 01:14:614 (3) - 30% volume finish on end?
8. 01:16:205 - 01:30:750 - Reduce volume a bit? Since it's instrumental here.
9. 01:36:887 (2,4) - Whistles
10. 01:43:364 (1) - Bah, this is kinda awkward to hit imo. Add a note at 01:43:250? Makes this part feel much smoother
11. 01:50:069 (4) - Just a personal preference, but move it to x:256 y:84?
12. 01:51:432 (1,4) - Whistle on (1) sliderend and (4) sliderstart?
13. 01:58:478 (3,4,5) - Well, it's a big jump compared to the rest of the map. You could swap (4,5), but it's also fine, so you can leave it if you want to.
14. 02:10:750 - 02:23:705 - Reduce volume because of instrumental?
15. 02:16:205 (4,5) - These feels really close when I was playing, and really tempted me to click faster =3= Possible to somehow rearrange this part a bit?
16. I would add whistles on 02:19:841 | 02:20:750 | 02:21:660 | 02:21:887 | 02:22:341 and remove the one at 02:22:114 (2) to accompany the song better.
17. 02:22:341 (3) - idk, clap on sliderend? xD
18. 02:23:705 (1,2,3,4) - Again a big jump compared to the rest of the map. Maybe it's fine since it's the end of the map, but I really feel the jumps should be a bit smaller

Lance wrote:

Almost half of the mp3 isn't used. Shouldn't this be cut?

ykcarrot wrote:

I think the aritsts must be actual name of singers.

azu-nyan14 wrote:

Same here, because in ANN says the artist is Hayami Saori & Seto Asami:
http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclo ... p?id=14167

• Hitsound

1. 01:00:750 (1) - Add clap at the start like [Hard].
2. 01:26:205 (2,4) - I suggest add whislte in this circles because fits perfectly with the track.
3. 01:29:159 (2) - Same as 01:00:750 (1).
4. 01:29:841 (3) - Maybe clap like [Hard].
5. 01:37:114 (3) - Same as 01:26:205 (2,4), you can hear the whistles in the track? d'aww that sound cool.
6. 01:52:569 (1) - Finish at the start to emphasize the vocals.
7. 02:17:114 (3) - And here whistle at the start.
8. 02:19:841 (3,1) - Exactly the same as 01:26:205 (2,4).
9. 02:21:659 (3) - Same as 02:17:114 (3).
   Beatmap Suggestions
10. 01:37:569 (1) - Delete new combo here and add the nc to the next circle to remark the change in the vocals with this.
11. 01:45:296 (5) - Same as above, really considers it.
12. Another combo suggestion: 01:48:932 (4) - Add new combo here, then remove the new combo 01:50:296 (1), and repeat the same process of 01:37:569 (1) in 01:52:569 (7), now new combo in 01:56:205 (5).
13. 02:19:841 (3) - To be own consistent with the combos add new combo here, check you before pattern of two circles and a repeat slider, if you agree with this new combo then delete this 02:20:750 (1) furthermore this new combo pattern is symmetric and looks nice.
14. Just if you want add a new combo here 02:21:659 (5), now delete this 02:22:796 (1) and finally add NC here 02:23:705 (4).

• Hitsound

1. To don't be repetitive follow the same suggestions here like in [Normal]

ykcarrot wrote:

azu-nyan14 wrote:

Same here, because in ANN says the artist is Hayami Saori & Seto Asami:
http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclo ... p?id=14167

I know that this song can be categorized character song.
Then the artist of every map that used character song should be character name? It's just NO.
GiNa, you are wrong.

GiNa wrote:

Why are "Seto Asami" and "Hayami Saori" in parentheses instead of the characters' name ?

GiNa wrote:

And, I'd say this is one of those songs that has special artist (just like the original ed, you would put the artist as "Shirahamazaka High School Chorus Club" instead of all the singers' name)

Melophobia wrote:

congratz~!

Kei wrote:

The start of the song (00:00:069 ~ 01:00:750) is mappable. Half of the song is unnecessarily skipped imo :l

dkun wrote:

Kei wrote:

The start of the song (00:00:069 ~ 01:00:750) is mappable. Half of the song is unnecessarily skipped imo :l

uh, isn't this unrankable if it's not mapped?

dkun wrote:

Kei wrote:

The start of the song (00:00:069 ~ 01:00:750) is mappable. Half of the song is unnecessarily skipped imo :l

uh, isn't this unrankable if it's not mapped?

GladiOol wrote:

I love it how such a mistake was made by a BAT.

Natteke wrote:

People never learn

Tanzklaue wrote:

this is a punch into the face of everybody who actually cares about his map, everybody who desperately tries to get MATs and BATs to mod his or her map, and to every MAT/BAT who actually tries to do his or her job properly.

Seph wrote:

yay another quality map ran-

oh.

Blue Dragon wrote:

Seph wrote:

yay another quality map ran-

oh.

your avatar is perfect for that post

Also... I completely agree with the previous posts.

Also, a question to andrea:

Why do you have to ignore the people who say this? Why do you just keep doing what you are doing? Don't you think it's unfair?


But please don't troll. Give constructive criticism instead of trolling, thanks. Any trolling posts will be deleted.

Rules wrote:

You must cut your mp3 if you're using less than 80% of it. This doesn't count intro time, and thus only applies if more than 20% of the outro is unmapped. If you only plan to map a portion of your song, then including the full mp3 is a waste of file space. Many mp3 editing tools like this exist which make fading and cutting a song simple. However, if you have a legitimate reason for keeping your full mp3 (e.g. a storyboard after the map ends), then that is fine.

popner wrote:

Rules wrote:

You must cut your mp3 if you're using less than 80% of it. This doesn't count intro time, and thus only applies if more than 20% of the outro is unmapped. If you only plan to map a portion of your song, then including the full mp3 is a waste of file space. Many mp3 editing tools like this exist which make fading and cutting a song simple. However, if you have a legitimate reason for keeping your full mp3 (e.g. a storyboard after the map ends), then that is fine.

popner wrote:

If you only plan to map a portion of your song, then including the full mp3 is a waste of file space.

popner wrote:

Rules wrote:

You must cut your mp3 if you're using less than 80% of it. This doesn't count intro time, and thus only applies if more than 20% of the outro is unmapped. If you only plan to map a portion of your song, then including the full mp3 is a waste of file space. Many mp3 editing tools like this exist which make fading and cutting a song simple. However, if you have a legitimate reason for keeping your full mp3 (e.g. a storyboard after the map ends), then that is fine.

Rules wrote:

You must cut your mp3 if you're using less than 80% of it. This doesn't count intro time, and thus only applies if more than 20% of the outro is unmapped. If you only plan to map a portion of your song, then including the full mp3 is a waste of file space. Many mp3 editing tools like this exist which make fading and cutting a song simple. However, if you have a legitimate reason for keeping your full mp3 (e.g. a storyboard after the map ends), then that is fine.

Tanzklaue wrote:

50% of the mp3 is not an intro :3

popner wrote:

thus only applies if more than 20% of the outro is unmapped.

So what if two rules conflict?

popner wrote:

thus only applies if more than 20% of the outro is unmapped.

So what if two rules conflict?

dkun wrote:

popner wrote:

thus only applies if more than 20% of the outro is unmapped.

So what if two rules conflict?

rule of thumb

50% of an mp3 not being used is blatantly stupid
have some common sense

did you even look at the ranking date? I don't see the MAT/BAT ranking this asking if it was in question?

Lybydose wrote:

There's no reason this should have been unranked. Unmapped portion requirements don't apply to the intro, and this file isn't even large to begin with. It's a stretch to even call the intro "mappable" due to the lack of a steady beat to follow.

Instead, you're just coming up with completely arbitrary and irrelevant reasons to unrank something just because you disagree with who the mapper is and/or don't want it ranked in a short period of time, neither of which have anything to do with map quality or "rankability".

Darksonic wrote:

and if people don't want to listen it, there is a "Skip" button..

Mercurial wrote:

Atte: A mapper that took 11 months to get his map ranked.

Stefan wrote:

Mercurial wrote:

Atte: A mapper that took 11 months to get his map ranked.

So, this is bad?

Snowy Dream wrote:

Re-congratz > <

cRyo[iceeicee] wrote:

TARI TARI!!!!

Philippines wrote:

One thing I should suggest: Never listen to other people's opinion.

those wrote:

So if I understand correctly, another forty-five seconds was mapped and it received... how many mods?