If you remove CLSW & examination CTB diff from your mapset but why you adding CLSW & examination to tags?
forum
Ocelot - TSUBAKI
posted
Total Posts
405
Yeah, I've been supporting the ranking of this map for the past 5 pages or so :pShiguma wrote:
Didn't BD post in this somewhere? I thought he liked it (Might be complete bs I just said, not sure)WORSTPOLACKEU wrote:
Cookiezi is not good mapper enough at all but his input about this map would probably bring something, yet the best is when someone can play this map and is a good mapper like let's say BD. Yes Monstrata has veteran mapping experience but as I mentioned before, I don't believe this map can be judged properly without being able to play it at some level. BS.. I am just saying what I think and what I believe. My experience tells me only looking at editor can't get you the whole picture.
WORSTPOLACKEU = forget this map, they dont DQ maps by random people say about it, only if u is a "notorious" ppl at community u can contest staff.
BLUE DRAGON = Para de ser puxa saco cara, fica apoiando os caras só pq são os famosinhos do jogo? toma vergonha na cara, vc sabe mto bem que se qualquer outro fizesse um mapa tipo esse, nunca ia ser rankeado, não em 2016.
Hollow Wings= what are your maps focus? Playability certainly not. No one make a map focusing quality with doubtful elements. You want make maps with "objective sense", then define this to "contest the usual". My intention is not say its a bad thing, but contest why so few ppl like you can get that things ranked. I want more ppl can rank things unusual like that.
BN circlejerking= I never would contest a map like this if it were done by a stranger. But BN circlejerking need to end, then i complain to every doubtful map they rank
And GM's =STOP DELETING AND MODIFYNG FORUM MENSAGES! we not are being non sense, we are free to complain our hurts. Do you think I like to be here talking about this crap? NO! Anyway we need someone able to change the bad things that happen in this game.
BLUE DRAGON = Para de ser puxa saco cara, fica apoiando os caras só pq são os famosinhos do jogo? toma vergonha na cara, vc sabe mto bem que se qualquer outro fizesse um mapa tipo esse, nunca ia ser rankeado, não em 2016.
Hollow Wings= what are your maps focus? Playability certainly not. No one make a map focusing quality with doubtful elements. You want make maps with "objective sense", then define this to "contest the usual". My intention is not say its a bad thing, but contest why so few ppl like you can get that things ranked. I want more ppl can rank things unusual like that.
BN circlejerking= I never would contest a map like this if it were done by a stranger. But BN circlejerking need to end, then i complain to every doubtful map they rank
And GM's =STOP DELETING AND MODIFYNG FORUM MENSAGES! we not are being non sense, we are free to complain our hurts. Do you think I like to be here talking about this crap? NO! Anyway we need someone able to change the bad things that happen in this game.
They can't. Because this thread is getting more uncontrolled.Kathex wrote:
STOP DELETING AND MODIFYNG FORUM MENSAGES! we not are being non sense, we are free to complain our hurts. Do you think I like to be here talking about this crap? NO! Anyway we need someone able to change the bad things that happen in this game.
https://osu.ppy.sh/s/388036 Esse mapa já foi mencionado nessa thread algumas vezes como exemplo de mapa estilo HW feito por UM MAPPER INICIANTE (esse é o primeiro mapa do cara, que foi atrás de todo o apoio possível, perguntou pra muita gente como o mapa podia ser melhor). Ele foi ATRÁS pra conseguir seu mapa ranked, não ficou chorando que o sistema foi injusto e olha só, ele conseguiu. Legal, né?Kathex wrote:
BLUE DRAGON = Para de ser puxa saco cara, fica apoiando os caras só pq são os famosinhos do jogo? toma vergonha na cara, vc sabe mto bem que se qualquer outro fizesse um mapa tipo esse, nunca ia ser rankeado, não em 2016.
Você quer MESMO me chamar de puxa saco? Sendo que fui EU quem ajudei a Hollow Wings quando ela começou a mapear no jogo? Quando fui EU que dei os primeiros passos pra ela aprender a mapear, agora sou EU que sou "puxa saco de famosinho"? Eu sou mais famoso que você, a HW, e toda a sua família juntos véi. Ficar se revoltando contra "famosinho" é pior ainda do que o que você tá me acusando, porque só mostra como você não tem força pra usar seus próprios argumentos, e seu único argumento é a "reclamação de que as coisas não estão certas". Você tem 19 anos na cara, age como gente e saiba argumentar sem insultar, você trouxe argumentos e eles foram refutados, agora você parte pra ataque pessoal e acha que ainda quer ter razão. Eu já falei pra você ir criar um tópico no Development ou Ranking Criteria se quiser REALMENTE ajudar e não só ficar choramingando como uma criancinha, mas não, você só tá aqui pra causar problema, só tá aqui pra reclamar, seu intuito definitivamente não é ajudar e sim só atrapalhar e mostrar pra todo mundo que está "certo".
Told her to remove both nicks, she said "nope".KittyAdventure wrote:
If you remove CLSW & examination CTB diff from your mapset but why you adding CLSW & examination to tags?
Literally the SAME case happened with her previous mapset where "Scorpiour" was added even though his diff was removed.
But hey, hey, GG!
Just because you're a top player with mapping knowledge doesn't mean your opinion matters even slightly more than anyone else here. There are many mappers who map way above their skill level and still have way better playing & flow knowledge than most. The way you insult this map with ignorance is only just weak. Your modding (p/5121844) is nothing but salt and comments of you replaying where you missread.
This map wasn't made for you, it was made for the game and anyone able to play it and enjoy it. If you can't play it and/or don't enjoy it, then why bother? One second you're complaing about "pp destroys mapping" next you're complaining about "non-pp maps destroys mapping"? If mapping today is such a problem, why don't make some maps and rank them to show us how it's done? Become a BN, QAT or something. Instead of deciding what's playable and not in your sense (As if we all share your view).
So yeah, when modding please try to find errors, bugs etc. And try to see what the mapper wants (which is hard considering it's HW), rather than writing down what's playable/readable TO YOU and what isn't.
^Basic modding knowledge 101, but seems like you don't know about
oh yeah, quoting WORSTPOLACKEU
This map wasn't made for you, it was made for the game and anyone able to play it and enjoy it. If you can't play it and/or don't enjoy it, then why bother? One second you're complaing about "pp destroys mapping" next you're complaining about "non-pp maps destroys mapping"? If mapping today is such a problem, why don't make some maps and rank them to show us how it's done? Become a BN, QAT or something. Instead of deciding what's playable and not in your sense (As if we all share your view).
So yeah, when modding please try to find errors, bugs etc. And try to see what the mapper wants (which is hard considering it's HW), rather than writing down what's playable/readable TO YOU and what isn't.
^Basic modding knowledge 101, but seems like you don't know about
oh yeah, quoting WORSTPOLACKEU
Well the mod that worstpolackeu wrote generally was not valid stuff but i don't know i believe kick sliders are valid as i mentioned with a screenshot too. And the solution was extremely simple without effecting the style of the map. Yet nobody gave an discuss about it or answer to it nor bn nor owner. So what now we arent suppose to answer the mods when the map in qualified section?
*sigh*
This will get ranked soon, let's chill a bit.
This will get ranked soon, let's chill a bit.
Let's get to my "mod":
First of (and maybe the rest of this post) there are way to much sv changes in this map (EX EX).
From 77267ms onward (none before this i think), we have 28 times, where in the following second 2 more sv changes appear (that means 3 changes in a single second).
I think that's a bit too much. Or maybe you wanted to map for the graveyard (nothing against you, just against the map), i don't know. For me this doesn't make any kind of sense.
I know, that i'm not good enough to pass this map (i didn't even played it), but from (many) other maps (e.g. The Quick Brown Fox - The Big Black std diff) i know that you can make a very good map with only one sv (no sv change).
I hope, that you take this "mod" seriously and don't say: "I can make what" without an argument why you make it.
Also please nothing like "You aren't popular, just 'cause your rank is #51k" and ignore the person as i am.
To smallboat, Enjoy, liangv587, Hollow Wings(Extra Diff), fanzhen0019, Kawaiwkyik and Irreversible & EvilElvis:
Your Kiai time isn't in sync with the EX EX one. It would be better if every map of the mapset has the same kiai time.
SFGrenade
First of (and maybe the rest of this post) there are way to much sv changes in this map (EX EX).
From 77267ms onward (none before this i think), we have 28 times, where in the following second 2 more sv changes appear (that means 3 changes in a single second).
I think that's a bit too much. Or maybe you wanted to map for the graveyard (nothing against you, just against the map), i don't know. For me this doesn't make any kind of sense.
I know, that i'm not good enough to pass this map (i didn't even played it), but from (many) other maps (e.g. The Quick Brown Fox - The Big Black std diff) i know that you can make a very good map with only one sv (no sv change).
I hope, that you take this "mod" seriously and don't say: "I can make what" without an argument why you make it.
Also please nothing like "You aren't popular, just 'cause your rank is #51k" and ignore the person as i am.
SV Changes and Times
That makes 107 sv changes in 144.723s (1 change every ~1.353sec overall).2 timing points aren't listed, because no sv change.
Listed as: Time in sec, SV multiplier:
35.659, 0.50
45.910, 0.75
55.558, 0.50
60.382, 0.75
61.588, 1.25
62.794, 1.50
65.206, 0.50
65.960, 1.00
66.412, 0.50
66.714, 2.00
67.618, 0.50
68.071, 1.00
68.824, 0.50
69.277, 1.00
69.427, 0.50
70.633, 1.00
71.236, 0.50
71.839, 2.00
72.442, 1.00
72.744, 0.50
73.045, 1.00
74.854, 0.50
75.458, 1.00
76.061, 0.50
76.362, 2.00
77.267, 0.50
77.870, 1.00
78.171, 0.50
78.473, 1.00
79.076, 2.00
79.377, 0.50
79.679, 1.00
81.488, 0.50
82.091, 1.00
83.297, 0.50
84.503, 1.00
85.257, 1.50
86.010, 2.00
86.915, 1.00
87.518, 1.50
88.121, 1.00
88.573, 2.00
88.724, 1.50
89.327, 1.00
89.930, 1.50
90.533, 1.00
91.136, 2.00
91.739, 1.50
92.342, 1.00
94.754, 1.50
95.659, 2.00
96.563, 1.00
97.166, 1.50
97.769, 1.00
98.071, 1.50
98.372, 2.00
98.674, 1.00
98.975, 1.50
99.578, 1.00
101.387, 1.50
102.593, 1.00
103.196, 0.50
113.447, 1.00
123.096, 0.50
132.744, 0.75
142.392, 1.50
142.995, 0.75
144.804, 1.50
145.407, 0.75
147.216, 1.50
147.819, 0.75
149.628, 1.50
150.231, 0.75
152.040, 0.50
152.794, 1.00
153.246, 0.50
153.548, 2.00
154.452, 0.50
155.055, 1.00
155.659, 0.50
156.111, 1.00
156.262, 0.50
157.468, 1.00
158.071, 0.50
158.674, 2.00
159.277, 1.00
159.578, 0.50
159.880, 1.00
161.689, 0.50
162.292, 1.00
162.895, 0.50
163.196, 2.00
164.327, 1.50
164.553, 1.00
164.779, 0.50
165.005, 1.50
165.307, 1.00
165.910, 2.00
166.211, 0.50
166.513, 1.00
168.322, 0.50
168.925, 1.00
171.337, 0.50
179.025, 1.00
179.478, 1.50
179.930, 2.00
180.382, 0.25
Listed as: Time in sec, SV multiplier:
35.659, 0.50
45.910, 0.75
55.558, 0.50
60.382, 0.75
61.588, 1.25
62.794, 1.50
65.206, 0.50
65.960, 1.00
66.412, 0.50
66.714, 2.00
67.618, 0.50
68.071, 1.00
68.824, 0.50
69.277, 1.00
69.427, 0.50
70.633, 1.00
71.236, 0.50
71.839, 2.00
72.442, 1.00
72.744, 0.50
73.045, 1.00
74.854, 0.50
75.458, 1.00
76.061, 0.50
76.362, 2.00
77.267, 0.50
77.870, 1.00
78.171, 0.50
78.473, 1.00
79.076, 2.00
79.377, 0.50
79.679, 1.00
81.488, 0.50
82.091, 1.00
83.297, 0.50
84.503, 1.00
85.257, 1.50
86.010, 2.00
86.915, 1.00
87.518, 1.50
88.121, 1.00
88.573, 2.00
88.724, 1.50
89.327, 1.00
89.930, 1.50
90.533, 1.00
91.136, 2.00
91.739, 1.50
92.342, 1.00
94.754, 1.50
95.659, 2.00
96.563, 1.00
97.166, 1.50
97.769, 1.00
98.071, 1.50
98.372, 2.00
98.674, 1.00
98.975, 1.50
99.578, 1.00
101.387, 1.50
102.593, 1.00
103.196, 0.50
113.447, 1.00
123.096, 0.50
132.744, 0.75
142.392, 1.50
142.995, 0.75
144.804, 1.50
145.407, 0.75
147.216, 1.50
147.819, 0.75
149.628, 1.50
150.231, 0.75
152.040, 0.50
152.794, 1.00
153.246, 0.50
153.548, 2.00
154.452, 0.50
155.055, 1.00
155.659, 0.50
156.111, 1.00
156.262, 0.50
157.468, 1.00
158.071, 0.50
158.674, 2.00
159.277, 1.00
159.578, 0.50
159.880, 1.00
161.689, 0.50
162.292, 1.00
162.895, 0.50
163.196, 2.00
164.327, 1.50
164.553, 1.00
164.779, 0.50
165.005, 1.50
165.307, 1.00
165.910, 2.00
166.211, 0.50
166.513, 1.00
168.322, 0.50
168.925, 1.00
171.337, 0.50
179.025, 1.00
179.478, 1.50
179.930, 2.00
180.382, 0.25
To smallboat, Enjoy, liangv587, Hollow Wings(Extra Diff), fanzhen0019, Kawaiwkyik and Irreversible & EvilElvis:
Your Kiai time isn't in sync with the EX EX one. It would be better if every map of the mapset has the same kiai time.
SFGrenade
R A N K
Solve the issues brought up about the EX EX difficulty. I think there is a lot to discuss before this could be moved back.
Which issues exactly are making the map unrankable as it is? If you're not even going to take a look at the map itself then there surely is something wrong here. Many of the 'errors' have been already discussed on the thread so... I don't get it.Kurokami wrote:
Solve the issues brought up about the EX EX difficulty. I think there is a lot to discuss before this could be moved back.
what the fuck is your problem, you're a ctb qatKurokami wrote:
Solve the issues brought up about the EX EX difficulty. I think there is a lot to discuss before this could be moved back.
This map is horrible, in my opinion. I heavily disagree with many of the choices made in this map, up to and including EX EX. I hate the fact that someone made a large grid snap linear box map with weird ass sliders and velocity fuckery. But regardless of my opinion,
It stands to fact that there is nothing directly unrankable about EX EX.
it follows every ranking criteria rule and is, as the entire week in qualification shows, is quite possible to FC consistently. So I don't know why people are bitching about its playability or whatever the fuck.
ffs
What exactly are the issues? You didnt even say anything as to why it was DQ'dKurokami wrote:
Solve the issues brought up about the EX EX difficulty. I think there is a lot to discuss before this could be moved back.
PS this isnt a ctb diff zzzzzzz
do you know how easy it is for something to be "rankable" shiirn...?Shiirn wrote:
It stands to fact that there is nothing directly unrankable about EX EX.
how is this a point, the ranking criteria is so bare bones all that matters is that the set is complete, and notes are timed correctly.
It's about as easy to make a rankable map as it is to make My Hero.
The point is that if someone wants to get "garbage" ranked, and they are able to have enough people willing to support them to rank it, who are you to say your opinions are more valid than everyone else's? Seriously, shitty.
The point is that if someone wants to get "garbage" ranked, and they are able to have enough people willing to support them to rank it, who are you to say your opinions are more valid than everyone else's? Seriously, shitty.
I did not find any answer to the mentioned issues brought up in p/5121844. Moreover, if you guys can agree that this mapset is good to go as it is and there is no need further improvement, despite of the conversation on the 17th and 18th page, it will be just moved back to the qualified section.
I figured you would have liked EX EX since it's basically ctb map
it lasted almost the full week only for you to take it down at the last minute, that's a pretty dick move considering that all of the STD QAT are, i assure you, totally aware that TSUBAKI is ranked, because i know for sure they get spammed by people going OMG ITS RANKED DO SOMETHING *flail*
it lasted almost the full week only for you to take it down at the last minute, that's a pretty dick move considering that all of the STD QAT are, i assure you, totally aware that TSUBAKI is ranked, because i know for sure they get spammed by people going OMG ITS RANKED DO SOMETHING *flail*
I'll raise more issues tomorrow, as detailed as I can without writing "meh".
I understand some might not be actual "issues" but if this is getting ranked it better be as good as it gets.
I understand some might not be actual "issues" but if this is getting ranked it better be as good as it gets.
2 weeks with no response from QAT addressing the argument whether the concept is flawed or not. That's all. If standard QATs say it's fine for EX EX to go through ranking then that is that.Loctav wrote:
- Unless the concept behind a beatmap is fundamentally flawed from the start, modding should aim to improve the map in it’s current design - not force your own style upon it.
@ people like Cherry Blossom that post "how about you post something constructive like a mod?" - see that quote right above. Would benefit you to read the full CoC as well.
@ people that call this mapping creative - there's nothing creative about taking an idea (not even a new idea in this case) and making that your map in its entirety. < happens to be a lot of HW maps btw.
https://osu.ppy.sh/wiki/Ranking_CriteriaShiirn wrote:
It's about as easy to make a rankable map as it is to make My Hero.
The point is that if someone wants to get "garbage" ranked, and they are able to have enough people willing to support them to rank it, who are you to say your opinions are more valid than everyone else's? Seriously, shitty.
The ranking criteria simply discusses OBJECTIVE things such as timing and metadata and what not. Literally bringing up the point that it's "rankable" as a reason for why it shouldn't be DQ'd is absurd to me. The purpose of the qualified period is to make the mapset better, not a third check of metadata.
Also nice pointless insults. Perhaps you can grow up a bit?
WORSTPOLACKEU wrote:
00:36:412 (4) - Why is this slider even there? The echoes? That plays horribly already at the start. Follows the back melody. Not really hard to notice.
00:35:659 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - This whole part already. No explanation is given other than "this is bad", so the argument is completely invalid if you cannot give proper reasoning.
00:35:659 (1,2,3,4) - Why are those already so inconsitently spaced? It's the first 4 notes in the song and already weird to play. Then you have 00:41:086 (1,2,3,4) - which is the same but spaced that further away? Those happen in the whole map, inconsistencies, yes you can call them RHYTHM VARIATIONS or PATTERNS. No. This is too much of randomness and slacky job imo. pretty sure it's variation in this case which isn't necessairly bad. I'd rather have a map that has variation and inconsistent than having a consistent boring map.
00:54:352 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1) - Cool but overkill, I don't know anyone who didn't misread this. The 1/6 is too faint and the design is too overlappy to play it properly. It's pretty logical to play this, the pattern is clear enough and there aren't sudden changes in the way you click these. They are well positioned as well, in a way that it can be mostly readable by the player.
01:03:246 (4,1) - This will never play well. You don't even have to hold the slider to the left here to get a 300. If this is an issue, then an easy way to fix this would be making the SV slower in this part, but that would probably make it harder to read and break the whole purpose of the pattern-making in the map, so nope.
01:03:699 (3,4,1) - This will never, never play well. Same as ^.
01:04:000 (1) - Sound at the end of this slider changes yet no slider change, feels bad imo. I don't see how it would be possible to make the slider change...? The whole difficulty aside from the ending sliders is based on straight sliders, did you forget which map you're looking at or are you just trying to find ridiculous reasons that don't even make sense?
01:06:714 (1,2,3) - Where exactly did you find this speed in the song because I don't understand how you go from this little change in tone to that speed.
In that case, 01:08:824 (1,2,1,1) - This should be different? Why is the highest pitched note so slow? When you go 12891289 SV on the previous. It's a relative change to the pitch of the notes before. The notes before the first case have a much lower pitch than the ones in the second case, making the change much more noticeable in the first case, thus justifying the crazy slider speed there.
01:13:648 (1,2,3,4) - You go first at those to make the spacing less and less and then 01:14:251 (1,2,3,4) - both separated up and down this time which makes no sense at all ? Plays super unintuitionally also. Tones go the same way just lower or atleast emphasize 01:14:402 (2) - this beat, or put them accordingly to the song. Your map doesn't have to be Hollowed all the way through and weird. If anything, I'd just ctrl+g (2,4) here. Seems valid enough, but certainly not something unrankable.
01:15:458 (1,2,1,2) - Super retarded to play, can't see anything almost and it just plays horribly. Seriously try make that movement comfortably following all the sliders a bit so you don't get a sliderbreak or acc drop. Isn't this a thing that makes the quality of a map to actually make it comfortable to play not the other way around to some degrees? You don't even have to hold the sliders there... Just click them as notes, that's the entire point of the whole thing, what the actual fuck.
01:16:362 (1,2,3) - lol again, I understand it's the design, but it is just not suitable for a ranked map. Same as before.
01:18:623 (2,1) - Why? Same as 01:15.
01:22:091 (1) - The sound is longer than this slider, why stop? No point to stop there. No it isn't? Listen to the song, there is a 1/2 note there justifying the end of the slider.
01:22:543 (2,3,4,5,6) - This pattern, I could live with if u put the 6 down beside the 5. Seems valid, but again, not valid enough for an unrank. Also, that'd probably mean there would be a change to the entire following pattern, seems way too much effort for something extremely unnecessary.
01:23:297 (1,2,1) - Why this change in spacing? The change in sound comes after the slider starts not before or on the start. what the fuck this is a stack
01:24:956 (2,3,1) - Meh not even gonna answer this
01:25:709 (1) - This should be two circles, would be so much better. Would play awfully with the next slider.
01:26:011 (1,2,3) - Won't mention those anymore lol.
01:31:589 (4,1,2,1) - Horrible to play. Follows the song well enough, doesn't seem that hard to play. It's basically the same concept as a back-and-forth.
01:35:206 (2,1) - ^
01:38:071 (1,2,1,2) - ^ Sound changes at 01:38:373 (1) - why no direction change or anything. because THAT would play horribly.
01:53:447 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,1) - Best part in the whole map.
02:06:714 (1,2) - wtf? ?
02:38:674 (1,2,3,4) - How to acc those, srsly. Yeah, accuracy is definitely a great reason to unrank a beatmap.
02:40:482 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - Random spacing? If anything, I'd place 02:40:784 (3) - at 336,32. There's no need for any other change in this pattern.
Thus said. This map is more of some artistic, aesthetic thing not an actualy playable RANKED map.
I understand HW is known for weird maps and this is one of them but let's face it, had anybody else made this it would never get past any BN because of many issues.
One of the most important issue I see is the inability to properly play this map and the almost impossible task of getting high accuracy on it. Even top players can't get good acc or combo because it's so easy to break and so many uncomfortable patterns exist in this map.
I suggest that we wait until HW responds before everything completely gets out of the hand.
PPL After qualify: wtf hard map, ugly pattern, EX EX for ctb, -1 -1 -1 dq dq
PPL After disqualify: wh is the issue? no no, qat
I don't get it!
PPL After disqualify: wh is the issue? no no, qat
I don't get it!
That guy literally wrote things like 'wtf' and '?' for every line. aer you actually using a modder like him as a reason for DQ?Kurokami wrote:
I did not find any answer to the mentioned issues brought up in p/5121844. Moreover, if you guys can agree that this mapset is good to go as it is and there is no need further improvement, despite of the conversation on the 17th and 18th page, it will be just moved back to the qualified section.
Not everywhere, I can explain all points I put there and I will tomorrow.Kisses wrote:
That guy literally wrote things like 'wtf' and '?' for every line. aer you actually using a modder like him as a reason for DQ?Kurokami wrote:
I did not find any answer to the mentioned issues brought up in p/5121844. Moreover, if you guys can agree that this mapset is good to go as it is and there is no need further improvement, despite of the conversation on the 17th and 18th page, it will be just moved back to the qualified section.
If something is rankable, it not means it's good and it should be.
Nothing more to say.
Nothing more to say.
Everyone needs to start somewhere, right? The reason is that there is no response to this mod and I got poke in the last hours to take a look at it quickly. I tried to contact with a standard QAT, who is not involved in the set, but even Irre wasn't online at that time. If this will get a proper response by HW with no change and no more concern come up, I will restore the map.Kisses wrote:
That guy literally wrote things like 'wtf' and '?' for every line. aer you actually using a modder like him as a reason for DQ?
pretty sure that's not how it works anymore. iirc now everyone has to agree and there has to be no more discussion or something like thatJappyBabes wrote:
2 weeks with no response from QAT addressing the argument whether the concept is flawed or not. That's all. If standard QATs say it's fine for EX EX to go through ranking then that is that.Loctav wrote:
- Unless the concept behind a beatmap is fundamentally flawed from the start, modding should aim to improve the map in it’s current design - not force your own style upon it.
but I literally responded it just nowKurokami wrote:
Everyone needs to start somewhere, right? The reason is that there is no response to this mod and I got poke in the last hours to take a look at it quickly. I tried to contact with a standard QAT, who is no involved in the set, but even Irre wasn't online at that time. If this will get a proper response by HW with no change and no more concern come up, I will restore the map.Kisses wrote:
That guy literally wrote things like 'wtf' and '?' for every line. aer you actually using a modder like him as a reason for DQ?
I mean it's not like it's hard to understand HW's intent behind the map
You are not HW, so right now it's your opinion vs mine I can also respond to your post tell you why I think otherwise, wouldn't know who is right anyway.Blue Dragon wrote:
but I literally responded it just now
I mean it's not like it's hard to understand HW's intent behind the map
It maybe isn't hard to understand the intent, doesn't mean the intent is done well and some stuff feels awkward to play atleast for me so I brought it up.
I just want this map to get as good as it can before it gets ranked, is that so wrong? Your emotions flow through your text, don't know if you are friends with HW or something but it's certain that you are angry for some reason. It will get ranked eventually anyway and we all know it, I just don't want it to get ranked because it's HW's map but because the map is as good as it can be, right now it isn't.
hopefully it stays this wayKurokami wrote:
Solve the issues brought up about the EX EX difficulty. I think there is a lot to discuss before this could be moved back.
Strange that you keep questioning about ex ex diff and trying to stop it from ranking. that hatred...WORSTPOLACKEU wrote:
I'll raise more issues tomorrow, as detailed as I can without writing "meh".
I understand some might not be actual "issues" but if this is getting ranked it better be as good as it gets.
And what do u mean by as good as it gets? This map is unique in style plus major issues have already been solved, so it's playable and should be accepted and ranked.
Well you got a whole mapset DQ'd cos of your opinions on a particular diff. Dude does that mean any randomer can comment in a beatmap thread and get it DQ'd?WORSTPOLACKEU wrote:
You are not HW, so right now it's your opinion vs mine I can also respond to your post tell you why I think otherwise, wouldn't know who is right anyway.Blue Dragon wrote:
but I literally responded it just now
I mean it's not like it's hard to understand HW's intent behind the map
The biggest problem that I have with this mapset is the aesthetic style leads to forced mapping choices on the creator that I believe lead to a poor experience for players. As we know, this map follows a grid focused aesthetics that leads to an extremely limited number of places of notes. This style also uses stack leniency of 2 to accomplish said grid style, which means that absolutely no notes are being displaced for any level of readability improvement. In a mapset which relies so heavily on SV changes and chaotic spacing, it's a huge oversight.Loctav wrote:
- Unless the concept behind a beatmap is fundamentally flawed from the start, modding should aim to improve the map in it’s current design - not force your own style upon it.
For example, in the beginning of this map, 00:35:659 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - there is a very consistent and readable level of spacing variety, which is extreme important given the grid nature of the visuals. 1/1's are consistently larger spaced and the 1/2 spacing is differential from this. However, as the map progresses, we get to this part: 00:45:910 (1) - which's theme is for the downbeat of the next measure to be on the opposite side of the last note of the previous measure. The spacing here simply does not make sense in terms of the choices of rhythm:
00:45:910 (1,2,3,4) - Kick is 1.0 spacing on 2, which then has 1.0 linear motion towards the weak beat of 3.
00:47:116 (1,2,3,4,5) - Kick has 1.0 spacing on 2, but then has 0 spacing on the weak 3 that follows then 1.0 spacing on strong 4 with 1.0 spacing to 5.
This immediately is an inconsistency in spacing choices for 3, why have different levels of spacing for the same sound. In a part that is SO restricted that it has literally only two angles of motion, the choices made here need to be extremely purposeful.
00:48:322 (1,2,3,4) - kick is 1.0 spacing on 2, which then has 0 distance weak beat 3 underneath.
00:49:528 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - small spacing on drum on 4 leads to giant 2.0 jump on strong clap of 5.
Now the first pattern should be noted as having the exact same musical sound of the first pattern, but randomly chooses to overlap 3 instead of not. The only reason I can come up for why this choice was made was in order to make it so that the 4 that follows is the maximum distance away from 3.
As for 00:49:528 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - , we have double spacing on the clap that before was only emphasized with a space of 1.0, I understand there is some difference in rhythm, but compare 00:47:116 (1,2,3,4,5) - 4 is the exact same strong beat but is only given half the spacing because HW chose to make her design so restrictive that she has to place 5 on the end not 4 because she wants to keep her theme.
This is where I believe this map starts to fall apart, because she's mapping towards the theme and not the song. I know I'm being extremely short with this mod but... lazy.
The song's should be what drives the theme, and the theme shouldn't be tacked on. If she wasn't using such a restrictive style on this part she could much more closely follow the song's strong beats with appropriate spacing. Therefore I believe that the concept behind the beatmap is fundamentally flawed for ATLEAST this section of the song.
to Blue Dragon: as for a suggestion on what to do about this: Don't use a restrictive style that forces the mapper to make choices that aren't in the best interest of the song.
I am not angry at all, I like HW's maps a lot. I like the unique style but I stay objective and can see issues, so I bring them up.sahuang wrote:
Strange that you keep questioning about ex ex diff and trying to stop it from ranking. that hatred...WORSTPOLACKEU wrote:
I'll raise more issues tomorrow, as detailed as I can without writing "meh".
I understand some might not be actual "issues" but if this is getting ranked it better be as good as it gets.
And what do u mean by as good as it gets? This map is unique in style plus major issues have already been solved, so it's playable and should be accepted and ranked.
"it's playable and should be accepted and ranked".
So is every rabbit jumping map.
Major issues have been solved but I STILL SEE ISSUES on my own so I present them, HW does what she wants with them.
Hey, if mappers and modders cant judge a map if they aren't able to play it..
Then why are 6 and 7* maps that you usually play ranked in the first place?
I'm pretty sure they can't judge it since they can't play it, no?
Then why are 6 and 7* maps that you usually play ranked in the first place?
I'm pretty sure they can't judge it since they can't play it, no?
Not agreeing with you about this cuz rabbit jumps are always 200bpm cross-screen jumps. This doesn't make much sense compared to this map,where every pattern is carefully concerned and considered before composing.WORSTPOLACKEU wrote:
So is every rabbit jumping map.
Please read my mod on page 22 and explain to me why the choices I brought up are well thought out and carefully concerned and considered before composing.sahuang wrote:
Not agreeing with you about this cuz rabbit jumps are always 200bpm cross-screen jumps. This doesn't make much sense compared to this map,where every pattern is carefully concerned and considered before composing.WORSTPOLACKEU wrote:
So is every rabbit jumping map.
Why do you care so much?
"You" being pretty much everyone getting emotional over it.
It doesn't effect you at all.
I have no mapping experience but it seems like it plays pretty fine.
At the end of the day, isn't that what counts?
If some like it, it was approved for ranking but you don't like it. Just don't play it?
Seems pretty simple to me.
End goal for maps is things for people to play, nobody is ever going to universally agree on a map.
"You" being pretty much everyone getting emotional over it.
It doesn't effect you at all.
I have no mapping experience but it seems like it plays pretty fine.
At the end of the day, isn't that what counts?
If some like it, it was approved for ranking but you don't like it. Just don't play it?
Seems pretty simple to me.
End goal for maps is things for people to play, nobody is ever going to universally agree on a map.
ok rank any map that meets RC requirementsMazziv wrote:
+1Illkryn wrote:
If some like it, it was approved for ranking but you don't like it. Just don't play it?
literally the worst argument in the game
by the way: if you're gonna complain about the map being flawed, at least give suggestions other than "remap" or "delete the diff" on how to make it better
I also suggest to wait for HW's opinion on WORSTPOLACKEU issues before moving on, even though BD seems to have answered them pretty accordingly.
On the other hand i just cant understand why this got on hold until the last minute.
Im salty as fuck
EDIT: I also think that WPEU should give more detailed arguments.
On the other hand i just cant understand why this got on hold until the last minute.
Im salty as fuck
EDIT: I also think that WPEU should give more detailed arguments.
"It was approved for ranking"Xexxar wrote:
ok rank any map that meets RC requirementsIllkryn wrote:
If some like it, it was approved for ranking but you don't like it. Just don't play it?
literally the worst argument in the game
Don't just skip points for your convenience, I made sure to cover that.
You're too emotional about this. Chill.
I think we should give HW a chance to read everything and give a reply. Having more comments that don't clearly contribute to this map won't help in this case, so I will lock it until HW is able to respond.
Unlocked on hw's request.
Please keep in mind that we discuss this mapset itself, help the mapper, rather than anything else. Any nonsense spam / offtopic or useless posts would lead a silence.
GL.
Please keep in mind that we discuss this mapset itself, help the mapper, rather than anything else. Any nonsense spam / offtopic or useless posts would lead a silence.
GL.
Topic Starter
have read 7 pages, here i give simple answers because i think it's not necessary to give feedback to mod - i've got no mod.
to Kathex: you are just delayed from current mapping nowadays, in rc, progress or most things of it.
to winber1: reading patterns can confuse you ofc, if you really read the map's cw. that truely is the point of that difficulty, and you've missed it at all.
to WORSTPOLACKEU: overviewed the "mod" thou i think most of them can be like "This will never play well." which i really don't think can be regarded as a mod, even did after the map got ranked. the map is obviously possible to play even get fc or ss score. and what's more important, you mentioned no unranble issues.
and if you wanna talking about ranking criteria, this thread is not the right place imo.
to Alveryn: i don't think extra level diff is made for everyone to enjoy.
to SFGrenade: sv change and different kiai for gd are allowed.
to Kurokami: well, i got the situation, and thanks for taking care these things, it's also appreciation that other modes' qats don't mind get involved into this. (qat get really busy lol, everyone should know that, especially mappers imo.)
if responding mods after the map qualified is also a responsibility to any mapper in any maps, i'll do that from now on and avoid such dq like this.
to Xexxar: slot at p/5133943 shows no issues, and btw, spacing and sv settings like ex ex diff are really common in ranked maps nowadays, that diff just bend all sliders into straight horizonal ones.
that's it.
to everyone: i know my maps may be questionalble, and still here those are. believe it or not, i've almost considered all possible points of people even in the last drama, by asking bunches of peoples' opinions much more than ones appeared in this thread. for that, you can regard my works as depending on - i can say, like at least 100 persons' - opinions in every map i've made. they can be short irc mods, tests or even detail checking by tools, double tests after those. noobs have complained those tricky patterns to let me low down some ridiculous spikes, pros have given personal opinions to let me provide more confortable settings to play, mappers even told some unbelieveble ideas or various suggestions as other styles' mappers. then i choose what i wanna insist and what really should be changed: just like seeking mods and giving feedback, but i think lots of people didn't remind how important that is. you may say this map is not perfect and i haven't think deep, just test me, find the issue and convince me. if you really can do that, it'll be always welcomed.
so waiting for next progress.
to Kathex: you are just delayed from current mapping nowadays, in rc, progress or most things of it.
to winber1: reading patterns can confuse you ofc, if you really read the map's cw. that truely is the point of that difficulty, and you've missed it at all.
to WORSTPOLACKEU: overviewed the "mod" thou i think most of them can be like "This will never play well." which i really don't think can be regarded as a mod, even did after the map got ranked. the map is obviously possible to play even get fc or ss score. and what's more important, you mentioned no unranble issues.
and if you wanna talking about ranking criteria, this thread is not the right place imo.
to Alveryn: i don't think extra level diff is made for everyone to enjoy.
to SFGrenade: sv change and different kiai for gd are allowed.
to Kurokami: well, i got the situation, and thanks for taking care these things, it's also appreciation that other modes' qats don't mind get involved into this. (qat get really busy lol, everyone should know that, especially mappers imo.)
if responding mods after the map qualified is also a responsibility to any mapper in any maps, i'll do that from now on and avoid such dq like this.
to Xexxar: slot at p/5133943 shows no issues, and btw, spacing and sv settings like ex ex diff are really common in ranked maps nowadays, that diff just bend all sliders into straight horizonal ones.
that's it.
to everyone: i know my maps may be questionalble, and still here those are. believe it or not, i've almost considered all possible points of people even in the last drama, by asking bunches of peoples' opinions much more than ones appeared in this thread. for that, you can regard my works as depending on - i can say, like at least 100 persons' - opinions in every map i've made. they can be short irc mods, tests or even detail checking by tools, double tests after those. noobs have complained those tricky patterns to let me low down some ridiculous spikes, pros have given personal opinions to let me provide more confortable settings to play, mappers even told some unbelieveble ideas or various suggestions as other styles' mappers. then i choose what i wanna insist and what really should be changed: just like seeking mods and giving feedback, but i think lots of people didn't remind how important that is. you may say this map is not perfect and i haven't think deep, just test me, find the issue and convince me. if you really can do that, it'll be always welcomed.
so waiting for next progress.
things got replied, here you go again
Hey please don't forget to remove CLSW and examination from tags x.x
Topic Starter
hmmmmmm i think that's ok to keep the tag, how cw's gd can't be added into metadata...? clsw and examination's gds are used to be in the mapset, which i've asked them to put their effort into this, i think that can be considered into someones who contributed to the map, too. for ctb players, i think those diffs are valueble to give a try, too... x.xNatsu wrote:
Hey please don't forget to remove CLSW and examination from tags x.x
but the ctb diffs are gone?? or am I stupid or something http://puu.sh/oYtkq/54aacb9ac4.png cause I can't see them
My tags make objective sense, not make your sense.Alveryn wrote:
but the ctb diffs are gone?? or am I stupid or something http://puu.sh/oYtkq/54aacb9ac4.png cause I can't see them
I just wonder if this on purpose 01:03:699 (3,4,1) -
01:03:699 (3,4,1) -
Kick slider's movements usualy works like this :
but to get 300 you have to make the first picture movement i wonder why no ctrl g 4 ?
Kick slider's movements usualy works like this :
but to get 300 you have to make the first picture movement i wonder why no ctrl g 4 ?
I'm a bit busy atm, but I'm planning on qualifying this map in like ~ 2 days. I realize the thread was locked for a while so lets give some time for people to finalize their opinions. It seems the majority of discussion points here have concluded, and I'm happy with that. However, if anyone still has anything left to say, now would be the best time, before the map is requalified.
I would at least decrease the sv on 01:03:699 (3,4)
Topic Starter
-Kanzaki wrote:
I just wonder if this on purpose 01:03:699 (3,4,1) -01:03:699 (3,4,1) -
Kick slider's movements usualy works like this :
but to get 300 you have to make the first picture movement i wonder why no ctrl g 4 ? because i want players make the first picture movement, if you are only talking about playability here.
Shizuku- wrote:
I would at least decrease the sv on 01:03:699 (3,4) that beat at the head is heavy enough to gain a longer slider.
Sure thing.
If you don't think there are any issues then well, go ahead rank this thing.
I still think you could improve the map but it seems you think it is good enough.
GL
If you don't think there are any issues then well, go ahead rank this thing.
I still think you could improve the map but it seems you think it is good enough.
GL
ctb diffs are in the description and they were made for this set, it shouldn't be too much of a problem for people to be able to search and find them, even if they aren't ranked with the rest of the set. It would, however, be nice if the links to the diffs were in a more noticeable place lol
It would be awesome if they were rankeddeetz wrote:
ctb diffs are in the description and they were made for this set, it shouldn't be too much of a problem for people to be able to search and find them, even if they aren't ranked with the rest of the set. It would, however, be nice if the links to the diffs were in a more noticeable place lol
So RIP ctb's diffs
Can you please fix that?
EDIT: Whoops, didn't update the map. Nevermind that.
yea tbh if u r going to add the ctb mappers in tags u sud make their diffs more obvious/easier to get in the description lo idk
Can I look for some modders again? 
Yes please!CLSW wrote:
Can I look for some modders again?
HW, please give the ctb diffs another chance ;w;
http://puu.sh/oZhah/9d24bc0c06.txt
I fixed some NC issues
I would really appreciate if someone could give a hitsound mod on Irrelvis EX because I just always find an inconsistency, but I'm not sure.. orz
Something that caught my attention on wkyik's EX: 01:10:030 (1,2,3,4) - I really believe that you can emphasize this sound better by not overmapping it like this, the stress is kind of really at the wrong place imo (same with repeated place)
I fixed some NC issues
I would really appreciate if someone could give a hitsound mod on Irrelvis EX because I just always find an inconsistency, but I'm not sure.. orz
Something that caught my attention on wkyik's EX: 01:10:030 (1,2,3,4) - I really believe that you can emphasize this sound better by not overmapping it like this, the stress is kind of really at the wrong place imo (same with repeated place)
Topic Starter
CLSW wrote:
Can I look for some modders again?
currently ctb additional diffs should give a nearly complete mapset for that, which i've tried to earn like over 1 month from other ctb mappers, but failed at last because got no finished works. i think i've been delayed for already enough time and decide to move this on...Razor Sharp wrote:
Yes please!CLSW wrote:
Can I look for some modders again?
HW, please give the ctb diffs another chance ;w;
so maybe next time? i think this is not the only mapset you guys can entry www
Irreversible wrote:
http://puu.sh/oZhah/9d24bc0c06.txt
I fixed some NC issues updated to last submission.
I would really appreciate if someone could give a hitsound mod on Irrelvis EX because I just always find an inconsistency, but I'm not sure.. orz i think this diff's hs work is really awesome, like the most excellent one in the whole mapset: it only used what i've already provide in source level, but still give various of hs pattern showed different original track to give much more joy expressed among patterns.
Something that caught my attention on wkyik's EX: 01:10:030 (1,2,3,4) - I really believe that you can emphasize this sound better by not overmapping it like this, the stress is kind of really at the wrong place imo (same with repeated place) reduced that part's additional beats (thou they do have some pitch shifting to follow, too weak that change can be noticed thou).
KittyAdventure wrote:
If you remove CLSW & examination CTB diff from your mapset but why you adding CLSW & examination to tags?
i think you need to reword itKittyAdventure wrote:
If you remove CLSW & examination CTB diff from your mapset but why you adding CLSW & examination to tags?
do you mean like this?KittyAdventure wrote:
If you remove CLSW & examination CTB diff from your mapset, why you keep CLSW & examination in tags?
though, honestly, their CtB diffs are on map description
RIP tho
I agree with other people here, the CTB difficulties should be more visible in description
Maybe I'm noob at all of that mapping stuff, but for me, this map looks like unplayable shit..
Strato wrote:
Maybe I'm noob at all of that mapping stuff, but for me, this map looks like unplayable shit..
Well, considering how many people have said and verified that all of the diffs are playable and FC'able (most noticeable being Cookiezi's 99,19% HD S on EX EX with <10 playcount), its safe to say that that sentence is incorrect.
Please keep opinions like this for yourself unless you're planning on modding this set, else you're just clogging up the thread.
It's senseless to keep in tags the name of mappers whose guest difficulties aren't uploaded into the BSS along with the rest of the mapset. Please get them removed before getting the beatmap qualified.
Topic Starter
Deif wrote:
It's senseless to keep in tags the name of mappers whose guest difficulties aren't uploaded into the BSS along with the rest of the mapset. Please get them removed before getting the beatmap qualified. ... ok.
reposting because saying "shows no issue" isnt responding to my modHollow Wings wrote:
to Xexxar: slot at p/5133943 shows no issues, and btw, spacing and sv settings like ex ex diff are really common in ranked maps nowadays, that diff just bend all sliders into straight horizonal ones.
Xexxar wrote:
The biggest problem that I have with this mapset is the aesthetic style leads to forced mapping choices on the creator that I believe lead to a poor experience for players. As we know, this map follows a grid focused aesthetics that leads to an extremely limited number of places of notes. This style also uses stack leniency of 2 to accomplish said grid style, which means that absolutely no notes are being displaced for any level of readability improvement. In a mapset which relies so heavily on SV changes and chaotic spacing, it's a huge oversight.Loctav wrote:
- Unless the concept behind a beatmap is fundamentally flawed from the start, modding should aim to improve the map in it’s current design - not force your own style upon it.
For example, in the beginning of this map, 00:35:659 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - there is a very consistent and readable level of spacing variety, which is extreme important given the grid nature of the visuals. 1/1's are consistently larger spaced and the 1/2 spacing is differential from this. However, as the map progresses, we get to this part: 00:45:910 (1) - which's theme is for the downbeat of the next measure to be on the opposite side of the last note of the previous measure. The spacing here simply does not make sense in terms of the choices of rhythm:
00:45:910 (1,2,3,4) - Kick is 1.0 spacing on 2, which then has 1.0 linear motion towards the weak beat of 3.
00:47:116 (1,2,3,4,5) - Kick has 1.0 spacing on 2, but then has 0 spacing on the weak 3 that follows then 1.0 spacing on strong 4 with 1.0 spacing to 5.
This immediately is an inconsistency in spacing choices for 3, why have different levels of spacing for the same sound. In a part that is SO restricted that it has literally only two angles of motion, the choices made here need to be extremely purposeful.
00:48:322 (1,2,3,4) - kick is 1.0 spacing on 2, which then has 0 distance weak beat 3 underneath.
00:49:528 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - small spacing on drum on 4 leads to giant 2.0 jump on strong clap of 5.
Now the first pattern should be noted as having the exact same musical sound of the first pattern, but randomly chooses to overlap 3 instead of not. The only reason I can come up for why this choice was made was in order to make it so that the 4 that follows is the maximum distance away from 3.
As for 00:49:528 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - , we have double spacing on the clap that before was only emphasized with a space of 1.0, I understand there is some difference in rhythm, but compare 00:47:116 (1,2,3,4,5) - 4 is the exact same strong beat but is only given half the spacing because HW chose to make her design so restrictive that she has to place 5 on the end not 4 because she wants to keep her theme.
This is where I believe this map starts to fall apart, because she's mapping towards the theme and not the song. I know I'm being extremely short with this mod but... lazy.
The song's should be what drives the theme, and the theme shouldn't be tacked on. If she wasn't using such a restrictive style on this part she could much more closely follow the song's strong beats with appropriate spacing. Therefore I believe that the concept behind the beatmap is fundamentally flawed for ATLEAST this section of the song.
to Blue Dragon: as for a suggestion on what to do about this: Don't use a restrictive style that forces the mapper to make choices that aren't in the best interest of the song.
Topic Starter
reposting because saying i've already respond your so called "mod", which is really nazi like "this blanket is not perfect". for the map which has decided to be put into qualified section, you should give issue to let me fix. i've also explained why i said those words, in case you only focus on the previous part of my post.Xexxar wrote:
reposting because saying "shows no issue" isnt responding to my modHollow Wings wrote:
to Xexxar: slot at p/5133943 shows no issues, and btw, spacing and sv settings like ex ex diff are really common in ranked maps nowadays, that diff just bend all sliders into straight horizonal ones.
Ofc, im in 2016 and still looking at 2009 maps concepts getting ranked by our "Very Efficient and Fair Ranking System"...Hollow Wings wrote:
to Kathex: you are just delayed from current mapping nowadays, in rc, progress or most things of it.
Pls i need to waste more time complaing about ranking system on forum to someone with "powers" make it less flawed?
Your map dont have "unrakeable things", just mappers opnions about ur super doubtful "objective sense" differs from yours.
You do not want to have people complaining of your map? Nobody likes, but is fault of the ranking system not your fault.
I already did posts in the "correct place" of furun with suggestions, complains, pointed some failures, and now complaing in maps like im doing now, the result? Im being regarded as a bad reputation. All my posts get ignored, locked or even deleted. Im wrong of complain this ranking system? I m sure not, cause everyone can realize problems with that.
Try you suggest things to change in this system, i want to see if they will ignore you like they do with me.
If someone again say me thats not the right place to do it, pls, if you know the right place, where we not get ignored, help me to make it change, im realy trying to help more mappers rank their maps, not just doing a rage about maps.
Rank this map if you're sure about the quality of it. It has been proven to be FCable anyway...
okay i got triggeredKathex wrote:
If someone again say me thats not the right place to do it, pls, if you know the right place, where we not get ignored, help me to make it change, im realy trying to help more mappers rank their maps, not just doing a rage about maps.
as i already said (you probably didn't noticed) you were not ignored, people just disagreed with you
and jesus christ can you write something really worth being considered? Now go to the "right place", think twice about concept you want rise and write something not about "bad system i cri irl amg change". Thank you kindly
Did another check just to be safe. Two quick things I wanted to point out before qualifying:
liangv587's Medium
03:00:382 (1) - I would end this slider on the white tick instead, for better consistency with the set (every other diff ends on the white tick at 03:01:890 - ).
Extra
00:38:071 (6,1) - I know some people found this pattern a bit hard to read at first because the 2x repeat isn't really anticipated, and the 2nd repeat is slightly covered by the hit-burst of 6. Can I hear your opinion on this?
[]
Call me back when you've addressed these two issues!
liangv587's Medium
03:00:382 (1) - I would end this slider on the white tick instead, for better consistency with the set (every other diff ends on the white tick at 03:01:890 - ).
Extra
00:38:071 (6,1) - I know some people found this pattern a bit hard to read at first because the 2x repeat isn't really anticipated, and the 2nd repeat is slightly covered by the hit-burst of 6. Can I hear your opinion on this?
[]
Call me back when you've addressed these two issues!
Topic Starter
thanks for modding!Monstrata wrote:
Did another check just to be safe. Two quick things I wanted to point out before qualifying:
liangv587's Medium
03:00:382 (1) - I would end this slider on the white tick instead, for better consistency with the set (every other diff ends on the white tick at 03:01:890 - ). agree, changed.
Extra
00:38:071 (6,1) - I know some people found this pattern a bit hard to read at first because the 2x repeat isn't really anticipated, and the 2nd repeat is slightly covered by the hit-burst of 6. Can I hear your opinion on this? ofc, and i think the best way to resolve this problem is change that repeating rhythm into another one, changed the 2-time-repeat slider in to 2 sliders.
[]
Call me back when you've addressed these two issues!
Alright, everything looks good! Qualified!
Hi I'm here to check the ctb diffs
oh
oh
Just because the map has been qualified doesn't actually mean that is 100% ready for rank. People and BNs can make mistakes. I explain flaws with the map like your random variance in spacing and you simply ignore my comments and act like it is okay.Hollow Wings wrote:
reposting because saying i've already respond your so called "mod", which is really nazi like "this blanket is not perfect". for the map which has decided to be put into qualified section, you should give issue to let me fix. i've also explained why i said those words, in case you only focus on the previous part of my post.
Insert placeholder mod meme (probably wont).
Ascendance wrote:
Hi I'm here to check the ctb diffs
oh
hopefully no one took it serious, i dont wanna get this dq'd again lol
Why not >:DAscendance wrote:
hopefully no one took it serious, i dont wanna get this dq'd again lol
probably since neither of the ctb diffs are ready and I'm sure hollow wings doesn't want to delay this rank more.CelegaS wrote:
Why not >:DAscendance wrote:
hopefully no one took it serious, i dont wanna get this dq'd again lol
Incoming drama.
/popcorn
/popcorn
congratz!
In my opinion, this shouldn't have been requalified as some people's mods haven't been addressed properly in the following reply:
Basically:Hollow Wings wrote:
have read 7 pages, here i give simple answers because i think it's not necessary to give feedback to mod - i've got no mod.
to Kathex: you are just delayed from current mapping nowadays, in rc, progress or most things of it.
to winber1: reading patterns can confuse you ofc, if you really read the map's cw. that truely is the point of that difficulty, and you've missed it at all.
to WORSTPOLACKEU: overviewed the "mod" thou i think most of them can be like "This will never play well." which i really don't think can be regarded as a mod, even did after the map got ranked. the map is obviously possible to play even get fc or ss score. and what's more important, you mentioned no unranble issues.
and if you wanna talking about ranking criteria, this thread is not the right place imo.
to Alveryn: i don't think extra level diff is made for everyone to enjoy.
to SFGrenade: sv change and different kiai for gd are allowed.
to Kurokami: well, i got the situation, and thanks for taking care these things, it's also appreciation that other modes' qats don't mind get involved into this. (qat get really busy lol, everyone should know that, especially mappers imo.)
if responding mods after the map qualified is also a responsibility to any mapper in any maps, i'll do that from now on and avoid such dq like this.
to Xexxar: slot at p/5133943 shows no issues, and btw, spacing and sv settings like ex ex diff are really common in ranked maps nowadays, that diff just bend all sliders into straight horizonal ones.
that's it.
to everyone: i know my maps may be questionalble, and still here those are. believe it or not, i've almost considered all possible points of people even in the last drama, by asking bunches of peoples' opinions much more than ones appeared in this thread. for that, you can regard my works as depending on - i can say, like at least 100 persons' - opinions in every map i've made. they can be short irc mods, tests or even detail checking by tools, double tests after those. noobs have complained those tricky patterns to let me low down some ridiculous spikes, pros have given personal opinions to let me provide more confortable settings to play, mappers even told some unbelieveble ideas or various suggestions as other styles' mappers. then i choose what i wanna insist and what really should be changed: just like seeking mods and giving feedback, but i think lots of people didn't remind how important that is. you may say this map is not perfect and i haven't think deep, just test me, find the issue and convince me. if you really can do that, it'll be always welcomed.
so waiting for next progress.
- The response to Kathex's mod (p/5112749) is plainly rude, and doesn't address the issue brought up by it.
- WORSTPOLACKEU's mod also got pretty ignored after bringing up lots of concerns (p/5121844). Even if some points brought by him/her lack proper explanation ("plays bad"), some others look valid and shouldn't be ignored just because you "quickly read the mod and saw the majority of them were poorly explained". Also, stating some stuff "can't be regarded as a mod" is rude, especially considering (judging by his kudosu count) WORSTPOLACKEU isn't an experienced modder.
- Xexxar brought up several concerns with the map (p/5133943), just to be replied with a "show no issues". Not satisfied by the answer, he re-posted it (p/5156146) to get a proper reply, which was also ignored when re-qualifying.
Respect is a two-way street.
Don't expect to get any if you don't give it. I certainly don't.
I see no reason to have mappers forced to reply to every piece of honest-to-god filibuster mods like it isn't obvious they're massive wastes of time.
Don't expect to get any if you don't give it. I certainly don't.
I see no reason to have mappers forced to reply to every piece of honest-to-god filibuster mods like it isn't obvious they're massive wastes of time.
I agree with you, but if both parties shield on this statement then it's a freaking neverending circle. You have to externally stop it at some point.Shiirn wrote:
Respect is a two-way street.
Don't expect to get any if you don't give it. I certainly don't.
Are those 'Filibuster mods' even certain 'mods' tbh? I can't make sense.
Mod is for improving the maps' quality, not to force to change with their style. And I think it depends on the mapper's decision based with mapping style.
Mod is for improving the maps' quality, not to force to change with their style. And I think it depends on the mapper's decision based with mapping style.