what the fuck such a fast rank...?
but its cool, congrats
but its cool, congrats
forum
DragonForce - Cry Thunder
posted
Total Posts
183
Gratz!
fun map, inc dq cos too hard for sake of being hard or some shit like that...
AR8 PleaseJenny wrote:
We may be back to old standards, boys :p
also where's the fine line drawn for the "slider outside of map" policy?
http://puu.sh/ikQQt/d6236d9ce3.png
http://puu.sh/ikR3p/64afcb9978.png
http://puu.sh/ikR78/cc0eab6c89.png
http://puu.sh/ikRb6/119d20070e.png
http://puu.sh/ikRcf/be7fd020c0.png
http://puu.sh/ikQpt/9611b0703f.png
http://puu.sh/ikRK9/1421313a75.png
http://puu.sh/ikRxH/08186c716a.png
http://puu.sh/ikRO1/ed48ebfd5c.png
http://puu.sh/ikR3p/64afcb9978.png
http://puu.sh/ikR78/cc0eab6c89.png
http://puu.sh/ikRb6/119d20070e.png
http://puu.sh/ikRcf/be7fd020c0.png
http://puu.sh/ikQpt/9611b0703f.png
http://puu.sh/ikRK9/1421313a75.png
http://puu.sh/ikRxH/08186c716a.png
http://puu.sh/ikRO1/ed48ebfd5c.png
02:52:849 (3,1) - really close together compared to the directly former notes, consider increasing DS
i can't really find anything else off-putting
Have you at least checked these sliders in the gameplay?
Topic Starter
the song has a huge contrast on these (as for a majority of the kiaitime guitar solo since it's very distorted), which is why there are new combos put onto them (rather than the usual 4/1 combo length in most other parts of the song/map) - if I mapped them as one smooth motion, this contrast would not be part of the play since a new combo on it's own does not impact gameplay (except for the HP restoration)Rickput wrote:
grid != playfield - until like 5 grids (size 3) out of the grid, you're usually entirely fine to the top/bottom (mind the top left, bottom center and top-very-right because of interface conflicts - not like those were unavoidable these days anyway)Rickput wrote:
also where's the fine line drawn for the "slider outside of map" policy?
making the spacing contrast like this makes it so that the player has to alter their playing style (large spacing + low angle -> small spacing + sharp angle, also into the opposite horizontal direction), which is why I went for that here: it gives a stronger snap and demands more focus - also, it provides additional contrast, both visually and gameplaywise, for the next combo. keeping large spacing for all of these notes without exception would make it feel much more repetitiveRickput wrote:
02:52:849 (3,1) - really close together compared to the directly former notes, consider increasing DS
I do understand the purpose of offesetting the combos, but the spacing and angle of the offsets are incredibly awkward for play, especially when there's not even a 1-note pause between the combos.Jenny wrote:
the song has a huge contrast on these (as for a majority of the kiaitime guitar solo since it's very distorted), which is why there are new combos put onto them (rather than the usual 4/1 combo length in most other parts of the song/map) - if I mapped them as one smooth motion, this contrast would not be part of the play since a new combo on it's own does not impact gameplay (except for the HP restoration)
This actually clears some things up for me - i couldn't find a clear answer to this policy until now.Jenny wrote:
grid != playfield - until like 5 grids (size 3) out of the grid, you're usually entirely fine to the top/bottom (mind the top left, bottom center and top-very-right because of interface conflicts - not like those were unavoidable these days anyway)
I still feel it'd be better with either a larger spacing, or have a couple of the other notes also have a small spacing so there's at least a pattern going. Having just one seemingly random note with a small spacing looks funny - this could go down to personal preference, but I doubt I'm the only one who thinks so. Would be better if the music had any cue to suddenly switch to the small spacing, but there's not much to call for that.Jenny wrote:
making the spacing contrast like this makes it so that the player has to alter their playing style (large spacing + low angle -> small spacing + sharp angle, also into the opposite horizontal direction), which is why I went for that here: it gives a stronger snap and demands more focus - also, it provides additional contrast, both visually and gameplaywise, for the next combo. keeping large spacing for all of these notes without exception would make it feel much more repetitive
All in all I'm not calling 'DQ! DQ!', but just placing notes down for consideration.
I don't understeand why you try to apply logic to this map when you just brainstormed 2015 patterns. I mean it's not bad but you can't really apply any logic to that, it's just hard because you wanted to make it 2015 style and that's it. No explanations, no logic, because there is none :3 so let's just stop
Topic Starter
There is logic behind every single thing I did in this map and you're free to check out my stream VODs since I talk and elaborate a lot on what I am doing.
What I mean is that it is obviously made for the hype of it. I mean, otherwise it wouldn't be 2015-stylish, wouldn't have those patterns, etc. There's a reason _index is mentioned in like 60% of the comments, and that is not because of the map's well-thought patterns, is it? I don't hate on it, always glad to see some DragonForce, what I mean is that we should all be honest to ourselves here.
To explain a bit more, what I mean is, it looks like in some parts of this map you just let yourself get carried by the hype of it. Nothing specifically wrong with it, but I don't think denying it is... right?
To explain a bit more, what I mean is, it looks like in some parts of this map you just let yourself get carried by the hype of it. Nothing specifically wrong with it, but I don't think denying it is... right?
Topic Starter
I don't feel like I am mapping "for hype" or anything- if I wanted that, I'd make it easier so that he could actually HR it for 600+ pp rather than making that pretty much impossible :p
And again, every single pattern is well thought-out and many of them are very much so explained in the VODs; do I really look like a cheap phase mapper to you after all this time?
And again, every single pattern is well thought-out and many of them are very much so explained in the VODs; do I really look like a cheap phase mapper to you after all this time?
Dear Diary, TIL That no matter how much you explain what you're doing to EVERYBODY; whether on stream or whether in IRC or by sheer communication; You're always mapping 'for hype'.
I also learned that Jenny 'brainstormed 2015 patterns' when she said on stream it was mapped to the music rather than to players of the game.
I also learned that 'We should just be honest' equates to 'just agree with me lol'
I also learned that Jenny 'brainstormed 2015 patterns' when she said on stream it was mapped to the music rather than to players of the game.
I also learned that 'We should just be honest' equates to 'just agree with me lol'
I think you are taking my statements out of context just for the lolz.
I have an opinion, you have one, nobody died. Keep it cool and I said that I like the map already.
I have an opinion, you have one, nobody died. Keep it cool
and I said that I like the map already.Been waiting some days , this map is lacking in order to get ranked.
Lets see what QAT has to say.
Lets see what QAT has to say.
2 more days. I doubt that it will get a DQ. Map is well done and I am sure the QATs already checked this one. There isn't really anything wrong with it, but i personally dislike the streams. They just feel odd to play. I cannot tell why, but I'm just not able to FC or even pass them sometimes. The movement feels a bit weird in my opinion.Shian-aaa wrote:
Been waiting some days , this map is lacking in order to get ranked.
Lets see what QAT has to say.
Watch this DQ.DoKito wrote:
2 more days. I doubt that it will get a DQ.
I'll count down for you... Ready...
set....
go!
DQ reasons below :^)
Disqualification Notice
Hello!
Unfortunately, the Quality Assurance Team has decided to disqualify this beatmap. The following is a list of reasons and examples for the disqualification, so that you can understand our motive. We do not outline every issue in detail, so make sure to take the idea behind each reason and apply it to the entire beatmap. An issue might be found on more than the spots mentioned below. If you have questions, please reply to this post and we will do our best to clarify any misunderstandings for you.
- (M) Mapping Quality
- Combo Color 1 and Combo Color 2 are too similar. We recommend that you change either one of those combo colors to something else.
- Overdone jumps with little buildup leading to them, along with other gameplay issues. There are several instances where you have employed the usage of large jumps to accentuate a certain part of the music. While we agree that there is a build up, there simply isn't enough to carry the player through the pattern smoothly. We recommend either to have a more natural build up, or decrease the spacing between them. In addition, there are patterns that have awkward flow when coupled with the momentum of the previous patterns. Lastly, there are some hard to read patterns that should be addressed.- Examples:
- 00:15:157 (1,2,3,1,2,3,4) - The build up is lacking here (beforehand), isn't sufficient to carry the player through the pattern.
- 00:23:464 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - Same as mentioned above, but also coupled with the very sharp angles the pattern gives off.
- 00:23:926 (1,2,3,1,2,3,4) - The momentum from the previous pattern is killed with the short spacing of 00:24:388 (1,2,3,4) - . The cursor movement will be too jagged as a result.
- 00:31:772 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6) - Closely overlapping stream can be hard to read/hit.
- 00:33:157 (1,2,3) - A lot of momentum moving forward with the kicksliders, yet the play comes to a dead stop with 00:33:618 (4) - . Spacing 00:33:618 (4) - out more is desirable
- 03:04:080 (11,12) - Pretty big stream jump that comes out of nowhere, doesn't really fit into the previous stream play when coupled with the flow
- 03:10:926 (6,1) - The spacing between these two stream jumps is too big in comparison to similar patterns.
- 03:34:926 (6,1,6,1) - The separation between these streams are too overdone, should be lowered
- 03:52:849 (3,1) - The jump between these two objects is too high. The momentum that follows into 03:53:003 (1) - makes the slow slider very awkward and could cause a slider break.
If you happen to have concerns about this disqualification, you have the option to contest the decision with this form. Before doing so, please read the instructions carefully.
We sincerely apologize for the inconveniences and wish you further success towards requalification! The Beatmap Nominators will handle this mapset after the issues have been addressed.
Good luck and thank you for contributing to the osu! community with your efforts!
###M
I thought peppy implemented a Quality Assurance Team bot to perform DQ's so you wouldn't have to get attention for it
Topic Starter
Adjusted all examples excluding 00:24:388 (1,2,3,4) -; everything else has been adjusted in a way and talked through/SS-shared on IRC.
Also, since a fair few players have suggested me to raise the OD a bit further, it's now up to 8.9 from 8.6 - decimals are nice.
Also, since a fair few players have suggested me to raise the OD a bit further, it's now up to 8.9 from 8.6 - decimals are nice.
IRC log
22:26 Lust: i'll just give you the examples we've listed in the dq post
22:26 Lust: and tell you what we think of them so you can fix them up before i post it
22:26 Jenny: mhm
22:26 Lust: alright first off, 00:13:772 (2,3,4,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,4) -
22:27 Lust: we agreed that the build up + the music warrants the progression in spacing
22:27 Lust: but we think that 00:15:157 (1,2,3,1,2,3,4) - is a bit too extreme given the previous build up
22:27 Lust: (spacing wise)
22:27 Jenny: 00:15:157 (1,2,3) - I don't think that's too far
22:28 Jenny: 00:15:618 (1,2,3,4) - can reduce spacing on this by a bit though
22:28 Lust: i offered up the suggestion that either you could space 00:13:772 (2,3,4,1,2,3,1,2,3) - out more so that the build up is more natural
22:28 Lust: or nerf 00:15:618 (1,2,3,4) -
22:28 Lust: ye
22:28 Jenny: thing is, I do the spacing with followpoints now
22:28 Jenny: so like, it's more in steps rather than just "oh yeah drag this a bit closer by like 0.18"
22:28 Jenny: actually
22:29 Jenny: 00:15:926 (3) - if I space this more downwards, that makes the last combo feel a lot less big
22:29 Lust: perhaps, i think one of the issues we had was that the momentum wasnt enough from the build up to carry the cursor through to 00:15:926 (3,4) -
22:30 Lust: so if you could place it in an area that would require less extreme movement, that works too in a way
22:31 Jenny: https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/3260037 ?
22:32 Lust: looks good
22:32 Jenny: https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/3260040 as opposed to that
22:33 Lust: next example was 00:24:388 (1,2,3,4) -
22:33 Jenny: I don't think those are misleading :p
22:33 Lust: we found that 00:23:926 (1,2,3) - gave a lot of momentum moving forward, so the cursor stopping at 00:24:541 (2,3,4) - is a bit too much
22:34 Lust: 00:24:541 (2,3,4) - spacing this out further from 00:24:388 (1) - works
22:34 Lust: it was more like the contrast between the previous pattern and this was too extreme gameplay-wise
22:34 Jenny: https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/3260050 ?
22:35 Jenny: I don't like having a followpoint there, is the thing
22:36 Lust: i suppose this could work, but i'm not entirely sure how to arrange it according to your liking
22:36 Jenny: I don't really see that one to be honest
22:36 Lust: thats something you could play with i suppose
22:36 Jenny: like, the issue with it
22:36 Jenny: noone ever had any problems with it while playing either, so I don't see a playability concern on it either
22:37 Lust: the QAT that evaluated this pattern and pointed it out is a pretty good player
22:37 Lust: not going to give any names away but
22:37 Lust: i'd trust his opinion
22:37 Jenny: and I kinda do trust my eyes and own abilities x:
22:37 Jenny: I've had a lot of people test this through since BNs were massively scared of it
22:40 Jenny: so yeah.. that one I don't see, no :/
22:40 Lust: its up to you if you want to change it, its still going to be listed as an example in the dq
22:40 Jenny: sure
22:41 Lust: anyway, next example was the overlapping found 00:31:772 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6) - here
22:42 Lust: the player could be disoriented upon the approach
22:42 Jenny: "could"?
22:42 Lust: ye
22:42 Jenny: ..are we worrying about "could be" in a 7* map? x:
22:43 Lust: im just telling you what we've found and agreed upon
22:43 Lust: its better to rule out any doubtful patterns while we can
22:43 Jenny: https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/3260092 ?
22:43 Jenny: do you think that's better?
22:43 Jenny: since the overlap becoves relevant 2-3 notes later
22:44 Lust: yeah, looks better
22:44 Jenny: https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/3260098
22:44 *Lust thumbs up
22:45 Jenny: fair enough
22:45 Lust: alrighty, next one is 00:33:157 (1,2,3,4) -
22:45 Lust: 00:33:157 (1,2,3) - gives off a lot of momentum, that comes to a dead stop at 00:33:618 (4) -
22:46 Lust: 00:33:618 (4) - spacing this out more would accent the music better + make the play more comfortable
22:46 Lust: errr "natural" as the person called it
22:48 Jenny: I was considering to increase it a bit actually
22:48 Jenny: one or two followpoints, what's better?
22:48 Jenny: I like 1, to be fair
22:49 Lust: 1 would be preferred yeah
22:49 Lust: but 2 would give more momentum into the spinner i suppose
22:49 Lust: but i guess that doesnt matter too much
22:49 Jenny: yeah, using one (3.01x)
22:50 Lust: sounds good
22:50 Lust: next example was 03:04:080 (11,12) -
22:51 Lust: the jump between 03:04:080 (11,12) - is way overdone
22:51 Jenny: eh
22:51 Jenny: it's just a 195 1/2
22:51 Jenny: I feel like I don't want the snap on 12 though
22:51 Jenny: so I'll probably redo that
22:52 Lust: alrighty, feel free to show it to me sometime if you'd like
22:53 Lust: 03:10:926 (6,1) - the spacing between these felt too unnatural given the play
22:53 Lust: lowering the spacing between the two objects works
22:53 Jenny: https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/3260132
22:53 Jenny: I like this actually, makes 15 a snap since it has the strong drum
22:54 Jenny: 03:10:926 (6,1) - thing about these is, if I lower the distance the visual cues will look really bad
22:56 Lust: like...03:11:388 (6,1) - stuff like this plays really well because of the downward lead into it
22:56 Lust: 03:10:926 (6,1) - requires some pretty extreneous movement
22:56 Jenny: I know that
22:56 Lust: so lowering the spacing between them would be ideal
22:56 Jenny: thing is, how visuals
22:57 Jenny: http://osu.ppy.sh/ss/3260143
22:57 Jenny: that'd be 2.05x instead of.. 2.4x?
22:57 Jenny: so it's basically the same as 03:11:388 (6,1,6,1) -
22:57 Lust: should work yeah
22:58 Jenny: 03:10:849 (5,2) - I wanted more spacing between these for visual balance but I guess it still 'works'
22:58 Jenny: not as well visually, but should be okay
23:01 Lust: the last of the examples is 03:52:849 (3,1) - this
23:01 Lust: and well i already told you about it earlier lol
23:01 Jenny: hm
23:01 Jenny: do you have an idea about how like
23:01 Jenny: I could add a little curl at the start of the slider
23:01 Jenny: so it indicates a hold?
23:03 Lust: no idea, the recommendation i brought up was to lower the spacing between the two objects
23:03 Lust: but if you could figure out how to do that, that works to i suppose
23:03 Lust: since it will make the slow down more noticeable
23:03 Jenny: I'd increase the speed by +0.02x or smth so it keeps the same length then
23:03 Jenny: but that'll be some fiddling
23:03 Jenny: so many beziers
23:04 Lust: and lastly, the other thing that was mentioned was that combo color 1 and combo color 2 are too similar
23:04 Lust: i disagreed, but welp i suppose changing it wouldnt hurt too much
23:06 Jenny: http://puu.sh/iqbqW/91a7d71300.png
23:06 Jenny: https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/3260176
23:06 Lust: i'd have to see what the objects look like to be sure, but from the looks of it
23:06 Jenny: or would that work
23:06 Lust: it should be fine
23:07 Lust: that works
23:07 Lust: thats actually what i had down originally haha
23:07 Jenny: you see
23:07 Jenny: the only problem with this is
23:08 Jenny: 04:15:157 (1) - I will now have to arrange this pattern :[
23:08 Lust: :[
23:08 Jenny: actually, works.
23:09 Jenny: yeah
23:09 Jenny: easy
23:09 Jenny: 04:15:157 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - just moved this to the nex sliderend, kept the exact same spacing towards 04:16:541 (8) -
23:09 Jenny: is that all?
23:10 Lust: welp, they were just examples so i'm sure there are other instances where they could be applied
23:10 Lust: but you heard that whole spiel before
23:10 Lust: yada yada yada
23:10 Jenny: :p
23:10 Jenny: I'd like the timestamps to be fair
23:11 Lust: going to DQ it now, we are trying out this new format for DQs to get ready for the new anonymized QAT account
23:11 Lust: so if the DQ post looks robotic as hell, just know that its intentional lol
23:11 Jenny: I.. see?
23:12 Jenny: using "dat hype train" for maximum new DQ model exposure :^)
23:12 Lust: LOL i wonder if the guys upstairs calculated this situation beforehand... haha
23:12 Jenny: no surprise would be had
23:13 Jenny: but yeah, go ahead
23:14 Lust: posted, lets hope things dont blow too far out of proportion lol
23:15 Jenny: at least you didn't do it like Garven and looked at the map before you DQ'd it :p
23:16 Jenny: 03:34:926 (6,1,6,1) - also, lowered these to 2.3x
23:17 Lust: lets see how fast this is posted to reddit haha
23:18 Lust: ...
23:18 Lust: that was quick
23:18 Lust: LOL
22:26 Lust: and tell you what we think of them so you can fix them up before i post it
22:26 Jenny: mhm
22:26 Lust: alright first off, 00:13:772 (2,3,4,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,4) -
22:27 Lust: we agreed that the build up + the music warrants the progression in spacing
22:27 Lust: but we think that 00:15:157 (1,2,3,1,2,3,4) - is a bit too extreme given the previous build up
22:27 Lust: (spacing wise)
22:27 Jenny: 00:15:157 (1,2,3) - I don't think that's too far
22:28 Jenny: 00:15:618 (1,2,3,4) - can reduce spacing on this by a bit though
22:28 Lust: i offered up the suggestion that either you could space 00:13:772 (2,3,4,1,2,3,1,2,3) - out more so that the build up is more natural
22:28 Lust: or nerf 00:15:618 (1,2,3,4) -
22:28 Lust: ye
22:28 Jenny: thing is, I do the spacing with followpoints now
22:28 Jenny: so like, it's more in steps rather than just "oh yeah drag this a bit closer by like 0.18"
22:28 Jenny: actually
22:29 Jenny: 00:15:926 (3) - if I space this more downwards, that makes the last combo feel a lot less big
22:29 Lust: perhaps, i think one of the issues we had was that the momentum wasnt enough from the build up to carry the cursor through to 00:15:926 (3,4) -
22:30 Lust: so if you could place it in an area that would require less extreme movement, that works too in a way
22:31 Jenny: https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/3260037 ?
22:32 Lust: looks good
22:32 Jenny: https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/3260040 as opposed to that
22:33 Lust: next example was 00:24:388 (1,2,3,4) -
22:33 Jenny: I don't think those are misleading :p
22:33 Lust: we found that 00:23:926 (1,2,3) - gave a lot of momentum moving forward, so the cursor stopping at 00:24:541 (2,3,4) - is a bit too much
22:34 Lust: 00:24:541 (2,3,4) - spacing this out further from 00:24:388 (1) - works
22:34 Lust: it was more like the contrast between the previous pattern and this was too extreme gameplay-wise
22:34 Jenny: https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/3260050 ?
22:35 Jenny: I don't like having a followpoint there, is the thing
22:36 Lust: i suppose this could work, but i'm not entirely sure how to arrange it according to your liking
22:36 Jenny: I don't really see that one to be honest
22:36 Lust: thats something you could play with i suppose
22:36 Jenny: like, the issue with it
22:36 Jenny: noone ever had any problems with it while playing either, so I don't see a playability concern on it either
22:37 Lust: the QAT that evaluated this pattern and pointed it out is a pretty good player
22:37 Lust: not going to give any names away but
22:37 Lust: i'd trust his opinion
22:37 Jenny: and I kinda do trust my eyes and own abilities x:
22:37 Jenny: I've had a lot of people test this through since BNs were massively scared of it
22:40 Jenny: so yeah.. that one I don't see, no :/
22:40 Lust: its up to you if you want to change it, its still going to be listed as an example in the dq
22:40 Jenny: sure
22:41 Lust: anyway, next example was the overlapping found 00:31:772 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6) - here
22:42 Lust: the player could be disoriented upon the approach
22:42 Jenny: "could"?
22:42 Lust: ye
22:42 Jenny: ..are we worrying about "could be" in a 7* map? x:
22:43 Lust: im just telling you what we've found and agreed upon
22:43 Lust: its better to rule out any doubtful patterns while we can
22:43 Jenny: https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/3260092 ?
22:43 Jenny: do you think that's better?
22:43 Jenny: since the overlap becoves relevant 2-3 notes later
22:44 Lust: yeah, looks better
22:44 Jenny: https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/3260098
22:44 *Lust thumbs up
22:45 Jenny: fair enough
22:45 Lust: alrighty, next one is 00:33:157 (1,2,3,4) -
22:45 Lust: 00:33:157 (1,2,3) - gives off a lot of momentum, that comes to a dead stop at 00:33:618 (4) -
22:46 Lust: 00:33:618 (4) - spacing this out more would accent the music better + make the play more comfortable
22:46 Lust: errr "natural" as the person called it
22:48 Jenny: I was considering to increase it a bit actually
22:48 Jenny: one or two followpoints, what's better?
22:48 Jenny: I like 1, to be fair
22:49 Lust: 1 would be preferred yeah
22:49 Lust: but 2 would give more momentum into the spinner i suppose
22:49 Lust: but i guess that doesnt matter too much
22:49 Jenny: yeah, using one (3.01x)
22:50 Lust: sounds good
22:50 Lust: next example was 03:04:080 (11,12) -
22:51 Lust: the jump between 03:04:080 (11,12) - is way overdone
22:51 Jenny: eh
22:51 Jenny: it's just a 195 1/2
22:51 Jenny: I feel like I don't want the snap on 12 though
22:51 Jenny: so I'll probably redo that
22:52 Lust: alrighty, feel free to show it to me sometime if you'd like
22:53 Lust: 03:10:926 (6,1) - the spacing between these felt too unnatural given the play
22:53 Lust: lowering the spacing between the two objects works
22:53 Jenny: https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/3260132
22:53 Jenny: I like this actually, makes 15 a snap since it has the strong drum
22:54 Jenny: 03:10:926 (6,1) - thing about these is, if I lower the distance the visual cues will look really bad
22:56 Lust: like...03:11:388 (6,1) - stuff like this plays really well because of the downward lead into it
22:56 Lust: 03:10:926 (6,1) - requires some pretty extreneous movement
22:56 Jenny: I know that
22:56 Lust: so lowering the spacing between them would be ideal
22:56 Jenny: thing is, how visuals
22:57 Jenny: http://osu.ppy.sh/ss/3260143
22:57 Jenny: that'd be 2.05x instead of.. 2.4x?
22:57 Jenny: so it's basically the same as 03:11:388 (6,1,6,1) -
22:57 Lust: should work yeah
22:58 Jenny: 03:10:849 (5,2) - I wanted more spacing between these for visual balance but I guess it still 'works'
22:58 Jenny: not as well visually, but should be okay
23:01 Lust: the last of the examples is 03:52:849 (3,1) - this
23:01 Lust: and well i already told you about it earlier lol
23:01 Jenny: hm
23:01 Jenny: do you have an idea about how like
23:01 Jenny: I could add a little curl at the start of the slider
23:01 Jenny: so it indicates a hold?
23:03 Lust: no idea, the recommendation i brought up was to lower the spacing between the two objects
23:03 Lust: but if you could figure out how to do that, that works to i suppose
23:03 Lust: since it will make the slow down more noticeable
23:03 Jenny: I'd increase the speed by +0.02x or smth so it keeps the same length then
23:03 Jenny: but that'll be some fiddling
23:03 Jenny: so many beziers
23:04 Lust: and lastly, the other thing that was mentioned was that combo color 1 and combo color 2 are too similar
23:04 Lust: i disagreed, but welp i suppose changing it wouldnt hurt too much
23:06 Jenny: http://puu.sh/iqbqW/91a7d71300.png
23:06 Jenny: https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/3260176
23:06 Lust: i'd have to see what the objects look like to be sure, but from the looks of it
23:06 Jenny: or would that work
23:06 Lust: it should be fine
23:07 Lust: that works
23:07 Lust: thats actually what i had down originally haha
23:07 Jenny: you see
23:07 Jenny: the only problem with this is
23:08 Jenny: 04:15:157 (1) - I will now have to arrange this pattern :[
23:08 Lust: :[
23:08 Jenny: actually, works.
23:09 Jenny: yeah
23:09 Jenny: easy
23:09 Jenny: 04:15:157 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - just moved this to the nex sliderend, kept the exact same spacing towards 04:16:541 (8) -
23:09 Jenny: is that all?
23:10 Lust: welp, they were just examples so i'm sure there are other instances where they could be applied
23:10 Lust: but you heard that whole spiel before
23:10 Lust: yada yada yada
23:10 Jenny: :p
23:10 Jenny: I'd like the timestamps to be fair
23:11 Lust: going to DQ it now, we are trying out this new format for DQs to get ready for the new anonymized QAT account
23:11 Lust: so if the DQ post looks robotic as hell, just know that its intentional lol
23:11 Jenny: I.. see?
23:12 Jenny: using "dat hype train" for maximum new DQ model exposure :^)
23:12 Lust: LOL i wonder if the guys upstairs calculated this situation beforehand... haha
23:12 Jenny: no surprise would be had
23:13 Jenny: but yeah, go ahead
23:14 Lust: posted, lets hope things dont blow too far out of proportion lol
23:15 Jenny: at least you didn't do it like Garven and looked at the map before you DQ'd it :p
23:16 Jenny: 03:34:926 (6,1,6,1) - also, lowered these to 2.3x
23:17 Lust: lets see how fast this is posted to reddit haha
23:18 Lust: ...
23:18 Lust: that was quick
23:18 Lust: LOL
Don't call notes after 1/4 sliders streamjumps, please, they are played in totally different way.
Edit: Bubble #1.
Edit: Bubble #1.
Cheers man. \:D/FrcV wrote:
[ C R O W N S ] wrote:
What did I say.
Damn that was pro
I find my rainbow sheep in the creator's words.
Let's go~~
Let's go~~
I don't think this should be posted here regardless. Posts in these threads are meant to be helpful/positive remarks towards the map/mapper, not advertising your 'Suggestion' just because it has 1 tiny paragraph referenced to this map.Shian-aaa wrote:
Thought i post this link to a feature request here ,
since its using this map as a roughly overviewed example
Its about mapping
t/338320
weak
bub #2
bub #2
go go go re-ranked
#2 Bubble Again
Fixed a beat that was bleh
Fixed a beat that was bleh
How to momentum? (mass * velocity)
I....guess that's an important concept when checking hard maps?
Never again >.<
I....guess that's an important concept when checking hard maps?
Never again >.<
can i rnak this
i prefer 0.3 sl tho
i prefer 0.3 sl tho
Topic Starter
handsome wrote:
can i rnak this
i prefer 0.3 sl tho
Sure; updating with 0.3 SL then
lets go
the superior df map in qualified
the superior df map in qualified
Wrong icon I guess lol
vhsh shhyu[url]yuhz[/url]Inyuschan wrote:
Wrong icon I guess lol
You shouldn't ever put a circle or slider's edge outside the grid. It just causes unforeseen issues on easy, hard rock, and catch the beat. I haven't downloaded the map, but I guarantee there's some off screen mods based on that one egregious slider which is erroneously placed completely off the grid.Jenny wrote:
grid != playfield - until like 5 grids (size 3) out of the grid, you're usually entirely fine to the top/bottom (mind the top left, bottom center and top-very-right because of interface conflicts - not like those were unavoidable these days anyway)
the userrating got reseted D:
is it normal after a DQ?
is it normal after a DQ?
Well I was mistaken. Doesn't change the fact that placing a slider where you can't move it is a bad idea.
You wouldn't have any problems with this if you just stayed inside the grid.
You wouldn't have any problems with this if you just stayed inside the grid.
Topic Starter
IamKwaN wrote:
I find my rainbow sheep in the creator's words.
Let's go~~
I love it. May I has it?
The best part of this map is the 2010 style storyboard
Topic Starter
Online offset is still a thing for all I remember, so if multiple people have that issue we can just do that
Disqualification Notice
Hello!
Unfortunately, the Quality Assurance Team has decided to disqualify this beatmap. The following is a list of reasons and examples for the disqualification, so that you can understand our motive. We do not outline every issue in detail, so make sure to take the idea behind each reason and apply it to the entire beatmap. An issue might be found on more than the spots mentioned below. If you have questions, please reply to this post and we will do our best to clarify any misunderstandings for you.
- (M) Mapping Quality
- Overdone jumps with little buildup leading to them, along with other gameplay issues. There are something that you didn’t fix or get them fixed properly after the last disqualification like 00:23:464 (1,2,3,1,2,3) -; 00:23:926 (1,2,3,1,2,3,4) -; 00:33:157 (1,2,3,4) -; 03:52:541 (1,2,3) -; 03:52:849 (3,1) – etc. Please read the former reasons and examples. - (G) Formal Errors
- Drain time is less than 5:00. This map starts from 00:00:388 - to 04:00:388 -, from 04:15:157 – to 05:11:464 - . The real play time is less than 5:00. 4:57 is not acceptable. For approval, it must be longer than 5:00.
If you happen to have concerns about this disqualification, you have the option to contest the decision with this form. Before doing so, please read the instructions carefully.
We wish you further success towards requalification! The Beatmap Nominators will handle this mapset after the issues have been addressed.
Good luck and thank you for contributing to the osu! community with your efforts!
###MG
I think someone doesn't really have their priorities straight.
doesn't drain time not count spinnerz. If it doesn't then it's basically over 5 mins drain time lmfao that 1 spinner is 4+ seconds
Topic Starter
Quality Assurance Team wrote:
- (M) Mapping Quality
- Overdone jumps with little buildup leading to them, along with other gameplay issues. There are something that you didn’t fix or get them fixed properly after the last disqualification like 00:23:464 (1,2,3,1,2,3) -; 00:23:926 (1,2,3,1,2,3,4) -; 00:33:157 (1,2,3,4) -; 03:52:541 (1,2,3) -; 03:52:849 (3,1) – etc. Please read the former reasons and examples.
I talked these through with Lust on the last unrank and it was clear that these got resolved/the first one being there would be tolerable since that is how the song goes. I don't see why this would be brought up again now when it has been addressed before and could have been brought up by the people in question within time, rather than, again, on the sixth day.
Quality Assurance Team wrote:
- (F) Formal Errors
- Drain time is less than 5:00. This map starts from 00:00:388 - to 04:00:388 -, from 04:15:157 – to 05:11:464 - . The real play time is less than 5:00. 4:57 is not acceptable. For approval, it must be longer than 5:00.
Okay, so what are the "solutions" to this artificial problem?
- a) remove the breaktime and add random circles/sliders there
b) add a 3 second slider at the end
I do not see how any of these are going to increase the quality of the map, and let's just be honest, making a mapset for this song would not make a whole lot of sense either - not even counting the fact it'd be just about impossible to get anyone willing to spend their time modding a mapset of 7 difficulties, 4:57 minutes each for the artificial issue of this being "3 seconds too short".
An easy and normal difficulty would not make any sense to have on a song like this, specifically considering its length and intensity, so I believe we can agree that that is out of question - so what remains to do regarding this issue?
Artificially inflating the draintime just to fit a sheer numbers criteria? Adding random noise at the start or end of the song/slowing it down by 1% so that it'll last 3 seconds longer?
I don't see how either of those would help raise the quality of the map (or then-"set") in any way, sorry.
Concludingly said: I could probably work around doing something for the mentioned jumps, but for that I'd need the QATs involved to actually interact and talk things through with me and test out different patterns as to keep both the existing idea and conform to QAT standards - about the length, I do not think we can really argue. Worst case I will add a 3 second slider on top of silence/remove the first break which will result in a huge loss in atmosphere and immersion, but at least it'll make it approvable by today's standards.
00:23:464 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - but they increase in spacing, how does it have no buildup?Quality Assurance Team wrote:
- (M) Mapping Quality
- Overdone jumps with little buildup leading to them, along with other gameplay issues. There are something that you didn’t fix or get them fixed properly after the last disqualification like 00:23:464 (1,2,3,1,2,3) -; 00:23:926 (1,2,3,1,2,3,4) -; 00:33:157 (1,2,3,4) -; 03:52:541 (1,2,3) -; 03:52:849 (3,1) – etc. Please read the former reasons and examples.
00:23:926 (1,2,3,1,2,3,4) - here this 00:24:388 (1,2,3,4,5) - could be changed to something like 00:26:234 (1,2,3,4,5) - to fix
00:33:157 (1,2,3,4) - it plays 100% fine, however that last note could be moved somewhere further away since it is stronger than the rest but the spacing decreases? although decreasing spacing can be a form of emphasizing too
03:52:541 (1,2,3) - look at the stream spacing, that's your build up for the jumps, just like in yukos trail of star ending but even better because here you have more spaced streams which lead to more momentum, unlike yukos super condensed streams that almost cancel momentum out
03:52:849 (3,1) - well, nothing wrong here, can't fix anything because the music forces something like this to happen, it goes from super intense high pitch guitar 1/4s and 1/2s to one long ass note which lasts for a few measures
low quality dq on a high quality map i am disappoint
just do the classic 1 circle on every downbeat in 04:00:388 - lol.
Kibbleru wrote:
just do the classic 1 circle on every downbeat in 04:00:388 - lol.
Jenny wrote:
Worst case I will add a 3 second slider on top of silence/remove the first break which will result in a huge loss in atmosphere and immersion, but at least it'll make it approvable by today's standards.
Topic Starter
Because that would make it a much more high quality map <_<Kibbleru wrote:
just do the classic 1 circle on every downbeat in 04:00:388 - lol.
On another note, my previous post is unquotable and uneditable, so I presume we found ourselves a forum bug (also, the distance to the end-of-post borders is fucked up).
For 3 seconds haha best reason EU
Just appeal to this unrank. There were no solutions provided, badly explained reasoning AND questioning. The 3-second thing cannot be fixed and isn't a real issue.
Build up issues have been properly explained by Jenny and Mazzerin already.
Build up issues have been properly explained by Jenny and Mazzerin already.
If it really comes down to it, there's a really faint instrument halfway through the break you can add some notes to, then extend the break after them by a beat and a half (to reach the vocals) and you'll get the extra 3 seconds you need.
I still say appeal though because this is stupid.
I still say appeal though because this is stupid.
I also have a faint memory of reading this somewhere, and i also think i've seen maps with less than 5 minutes of drain time with a long slider at the end/spinner getting ranked recently.VINXIS wrote:
doesn't drain time not count spinnerz. If it doesn't then it's basically over 5 mins drain time lmfao that 1 spinner is 4+ seconds
EDIT: I can't access osu right now, but I think this counts: https://osu.ppy.sh/s/101317
Drain time is incorrect when there's a slider or spinner at the end of the map (drain time only goes to the start of the slider/spinner). This map ends with a circle so that doesn't apply.
Topic Starter
I did appeal when I wrote the initial reply post already, so there's hoping they'll get to look through it relatively soon.
Ah, I just assumed that the spinner was at the end because of VINXIS post, my bad.MillhioreF wrote:
Drain time is incorrect when there's a slider or spinner at the end of the map (drain time only goes to the start of the slider/spinner). This map ends with a circle so that doesn't apply.
In the worst case, if you don't want to change anything, you can still slow down the BPM a bit, like -1 or -2. It won't be hearable, won't ruin the song quality (unless if you're slowing it down slightly) and will make your map a bit longer, to reach 5:00.
You'll indeed have to replace every single element and timing point in your map, but it's still a solution if you're not lazy or don't want to change your mapping.
In all cases, you'll have to reach 5:00 in order to rank it, because that's how the RC are, and there's still no marathon map ranked below 5:00 since 2007.
(except if the QAT decides to make an exception)
Good luck!
You'll indeed have to replace every single element and timing point in your map, but it's still a solution if you're not lazy or don't want to change your mapping.
In all cases, you'll have to reach 5:00 in order to rank it, because that's how the RC are, and there's still no marathon map ranked below 5:00 since 2007.
(except if the QAT decides to make an exception)
Good luck!
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/101317Neil Watts wrote:
and there's still no marathon map ranked below 5:00 since 2007.
4:59:999 draintime
I wonder why wasn't it DQed.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯Kyubey wrote:
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/101317Neil Watts wrote:
and there's still no marathon map ranked below 5:00 since 2007.
4:59:999 draintime
I wonder why wasn't it DQed.
The drain time is only 4:59.999 because of a rounding error. It consists of 95 measures of four beats each at 76 bpm which comes out to exactly five minutes.Kyubey wrote:
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/101317Neil Watts wrote:
and there's still no marathon map ranked below 5:00 since 2007.
4:59:999 draintime
I wonder why wasn't it DQed.
DeletedUser_4329079
redacted
God Mode activatedJenny wrote:
On another note, my previous post is unquotable and uneditable, so I presume we found ourselves a forum bug (also, the distance to the end-of-post borders is fucked up).
stuff like this is why the mapping community is so inaccessible
There were days where it was much more accessible but there were so many other problemsII Jelli II wrote:
stuff like this is why the mapping community is so inaccessible
Big Black lasts less than 5 minutes and it is still approovedNeil Watts wrote:
In the worst case, if you don't want to change anything, you can still slow down the BPM a bit, like -1 or -2. It won't be hearable, won't ruin the song quality (unless if you're slowing it down slightly) and will make your map a bit longer, to reach 5:00.
You'll indeed have to replace every single element and timing point in your map, but it's still a solution if you're not lazy or don't want to change your mapping.
In all cases, you'll have to reach 5:00 in order to rank it, because that's how the RC are, and there's still no marathon map ranked below 5:00 since 2007.
(except if the QAT decides to make an exception)
Good luck!
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/38846Neil Watts wrote:
there's still no marathon map ranked below 5:00 since 2007.
(except if the QAT decides to make an exception)
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/38846
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/45306
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/38697
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/36569
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/55560
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/34348
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/36988
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/53923
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/48842
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/17558
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/46238
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/44527
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/48979
seems like a lot of exceptions, or did they change the rules in 2012?
It was possible to approve shorter maps before, but i think that changed in late 2012 (?). Its not possible now anyways.II Jelli II wrote:
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/38846Neil Watts wrote:
there's still no marathon map ranked below 5:00 since 2007.
(except if the QAT decides to make an exception)
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/38846
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/45306
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/38697
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/36569
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/55560
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/34348
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/36988
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/53923
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/48842
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/17558
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/46238
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/44527
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/48979
seems like a lot of exceptions, or did they change the rules in 2012?
Why not try + Offset or - OD，I think OD too high result it hard
(I M taikoplayer ，I play this song have to +2 offset ..But BPM I think it is no problem :3
I wish I can help you (Even I will not play OSU
(I M taikoplayer ，I play this song have to +2 offset ..But BPM I think it is no problem :3
I wish I can help you (Even I will not play OSU
I believe it's well known that 5 min is a hard requirement for approval and there are no exceptions, especially not for maps whose drain time falls a bit short.
Which is why this map should not go for approval then. As much as it sucks, rules are rules, and everyone has to abide by them. I've had countless 4:5X songs I've wanted to map for approval but just couldn't.Blue Dragon wrote:
The 3-second thing cannot be fixed and isn't a real issue.
which is completely retarded.xxdeathx wrote:
I believe it's well known that 5 min is a hard requirement for approval and there are no exceptions, especially not for maps whose drain time falls a bit short.
Why do we have to go full nazi on things like this? I dont want to change the speed of the song or create a possible 7 diff spread, just because my map is two damn seconds short.
Also, what is the difference from a 4:58min 200 BPM song to a 5:10min 180 BPM song? It would have around the same amount of objects, assuming it would be the same map. Am I not allowed to qualify basically the same map, just because of these two seconds? There's no real logic beind that.
I understand if it's impossible to make the map 5 minutes but Jenny has 3 seconds they can map so just map it lol. The rules a rule and we all know that allowing 4:57 to get ranked would just cause controversy for every other 4:57 map and 4:56... then 4:55.
Now I actually want the approval time to be around 4:40 but that shouldn't be discussed for this map and for another time. A rules a rule so follow.
The worst part is you actually have a way to not break said rule yet theres controversy over it...
Now I actually want the approval time to be around 4:40 but that shouldn't be discussed for this map and for another time. A rules a rule so follow.
The worst part is you actually have a way to not break said rule yet theres controversy over it...
Topic Starter
TheGrimOfCrazy wrote:
I understand if it's impossible to make the map 5 minutes but Jenny has 3 seconds they can map so just map it lol.
The worst part is you actually have a way to not break said rule yet theres controversy over it...
Jenny wrote:
Quality Assurance Team wrote:
- (F) Formal Errors
- Drain time is less than 5:00. This map starts from 00:00:388 - to 04:00:388 -, from 04:15:157 – to 05:11:464 - . The real play time is less than 5:00. 4:57 is not acceptable. For approval, it must be longer than 5:00.
Okay, so what are the "solutions" to this artificial problem?
- a) remove the breaktime and add random circles/sliders there
b) add a 3 second slider at the end
I do not see how any of these are going to increase the quality of the map, and let's just be honest, making a mapset for this song would not make a whole lot of sense either - not even counting the fact it'd be just about impossible to get anyone willing to spend their time modding a mapset of 7 difficulties, 4:57 minutes each for the artificial issue of this being "3 seconds too short".
An easy and normal difficulty would not make any sense to have on a song like this, specifically considering its length and intensity, so I believe we can agree that that is out of question - so what remains to do regarding this issue?
Artificially inflating the draintime just to fit a sheer numbers criteria? Adding random noise at the start or end of the song/slowing it down by 1% so that it'll last 3 seconds longer?
I don't see how either of those would help raise the quality of the map (or then-"set") in any way, sorry.
Concludingly said: I could probably work around doing something for the mentioned jumps, but for that I'd need the QATs involved to actually interact and talk things through with me and test out different patterns as to keep both the existing idea and conform to QAT standards - about the length, I do not think we can really argue. Worst case I will add a 3 second slider on top of silence/remove the first break which will result in a huge loss in atmosphere and immersion, but at least it'll make it approvable by today's standards.
This is not about "there is no way to not break this", this is about "enforcing this rule under any circumstance would result in a loss of quality", which is not supposed to be the aim of the QAT, specifically in border cases like this, where the benefit is legitimately only three forced seconds of "gameplay" in parts of the song that have no standout beats or patterning.
If we allow someone to have a 4:59:00 map, someone else is going to say "but look, this map was 4:59:00 Mine's 4:58:00! It's practically the same!" And someone else will say "Mine is 4:57:00!! That 4:58:00 map got approved, mine's practically the same, let me go for approval too!" And the chain will continue until 30 second maps are going for approval. You need to draw the line somewhere, and right now, the line is drawn at 5:00:00. It used to be higher if I recall.Yauxo wrote:
which is completely retarded.xxdeathx wrote:
I believe it's well known that 5 min is a hard requirement for approval and there are no exceptions, especially not for maps whose drain time falls a bit short.
Why do we have to go full nazi on things like this? I dont want to change the speed of the song or create a possible 7 diff spread, just because my map is two damn seconds short.
Also, what is the difference from a 4:58min 200 BPM song to a 5:10min 180 BPM song? It would have around the same amount of objects, assuming it would be the same map. Am I not allowed to qualify basically the same map, just because of these two seconds? There's no real logic beind that.
You could argue that this map is absolutely not suitable for a Normal/Hard but mappers are just going to complain "How come that 4:57:00 map got approved, but i need to map a full 6-diff spread for my 4:58:00 150 BPM map?"
5:00 is a very workable number. Allowing lenience to one map means allowing lenience to all maps.
Make a 5 minute normal beatmap please.lolcubes wrote:
The original Approval rule was 4:30 and/or score above 18~20m, however that got nuked because, if I remember correctly, peppy decided (and posted somewhere on these forums, can't find it now) that all maps should actually aim for rank and not for approval. Approval was only meant to be for really special and unique maps, and true marathons, however longer songs were considered to be a marathon for some reason too.
Someone else make a post in ranking criteria to complain about the inanity of Easy/Normal difficulties longer than 3 minutes.
Unless of course Jenny can map a 1:30 normal and still get this ranked? or is that bad form?
Topic Starter
ziin wrote:
Make a 5 minute normal beatmap please.lolcubes wrote:
The original Approval rule was 4:30 and/or score above 18~20m, however that got nuked because, if I remember correctly, peppy decided (and posted somewhere on these forums, can't find it now) that all maps should actually aim for rank and not for approval. Approval was only meant to be for really special and unique maps, and true marathons, however longer songs were considered to be a marathon for some reason too.
Someone else make a post in ranking criteria to complain about the inanity of Easy/Normal difficulties longer than 3 minutes.
Unless of course Jenny can map a 1:30 normal and still get this ranked? or is that bad form?
If I was going to go for the difficulty spread-option on this, I'd have to make about 5-6 additional difficulties at full length, because that's how the system works - no diffs may end significantly early, and there must be no holes in ranked mapsets.
At this point I'd just map the break out. That's what I ended up having to do for my map because drain was 4:57 as well. 
I can't find that rule.Jenny wrote:
no diffs may end significantly early
Mapping the break is the worst thing you could do in this situation.
Topic Starter
Frankly speaking, last time I asked/was in contact with something like that is over a year ago, so maybe it changed - will go poke a QAT about it, if I so manage to catch one online;ziin wrote:
I can't find that rule.Jenny wrote:
no diffs may end significantly early
Mapping the break is the worst thing you could do in this situation.
and yes, I agree - mapping the break would result in a big loss of atmospheric value, but it's probably a lot easier to do than get another 6 diffs and get mods for them, which is sad but that's where we are, hence me contesting the disqualification :/
Both of these "options" suck ass.
Fittingness and quality are supposed to come first.
If quality was the first concern then the whole marathon rule wouldn't exist in the first place.
I want old approval back
goold old 2012
goold old 2012
If they we're to shorten the approval time, there would be so many approved maps since people wouldn't want to map a full set. I think the 5 minute bar is fine.
Tbh you probably should've figured out what the drain time would average out to be before you started mapping.
Tbh you probably should've figured out what the drain time would average out to be before you started mapping.
There are so many approval maps that have less than 5:00 drain, including jenny's fallen world, airman (it has a ranked tho), Big Black, Pony etc
which were ranked years ago, rules are changing yknowDelk wrote:
There are so many approval maps that have less than 5:00 drain, including jenny's fallen world, airman (it has a ranked tho), Big Black, Pony etc
Now that I noticed it I am sorry for what I said. I know why it has to be 5:00 and 4:58 cant be forgiven. Because then someone will post an approval 4:55 map and ask for the same, and so on....Aka wrote:
which were ranked years ago, rules are changing yknowDelk wrote:
There are so many approval maps that have less than 5:00 drain, including jenny's fallen world, airman (it has a ranked tho), Big Black, Pony etc
Jenny... approving a 5:00 minute map is not really a "quality" issue but more of an "adhering by the rules" issue. So, I would suggest that you don't give yourself and others further headache and just map the break.
Good luck.
Good luck.
Topic Starter
Which then results in compromising fittingness with the song for the sheer sake of a three second edge case, in a rhythm game I may add, whose goal is supposedly to go with the song as well as possible, hence rhythm.Kinshara wrote:
Jenny... approving a 5:00 minute map is not really a "quality" issue but more of an "adhering by the rules" issue. So, I would suggest that you don't give yourself and others further headache and just map the break.
Good luck.
Also, still no reaction by the QAT.
While that is true, I don't see how mapping the break will ruin the map and/or song. Could you please elaborate?
In my opinion, the break can be mapped decently without any loss of quality, but perhaps, I am mistaken.
Also, if your contestation is still pending, Loctav said to contact him (according to his reply on ask.fm).
In my opinion, the break can be mapped decently without any loss of quality, but perhaps, I am mistaken.
Also, if your contestation is still pending, Loctav said to contact him (according to his reply on ask.fm).
The rules are rules, there's no way around it besides sacrificing the break. I highly doubt the QAT will even consider your case knowing what can happen to other maps if they let this one slide. They're already having a hard time with unrelated BG's after letting 7 -seven- slide.
Topic Starter
Drain time is now 5:11 - considering to make the slowpart's sliders 0.09-0.13x instead though, to make it even more of a hold-y feeling rather than a very slow slide.
May the QATs be in our favor.
Bubble #1
Bubble #1
That break seems so lazily mapped :< you should map to the vocals and chimes in the background.