"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
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
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
-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.
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
Yes please!CLSW wrote:
Can I look for some modders again?
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;
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?
Strato wrote:
Maybe I'm noob at all of that mapping stuff, but for me, this map looks like unplayable shit..
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Ascendance wrote:
Hi I'm here to check the ctb diffs
oh
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
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.
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.
I don't see how it helps anyone if there isn't a proper response, honestly. The modder learns nothing, and also many people look at mod responses to improve their own modding, so this doesn't help them either. If the modder is rude, you can tell them that, but still respond to their mod. If HW had done this, even if their response was as disrespectful as parts of the mod (Although they shouldn't be, as I would assume HW would know better), it would be fine.Shiirn wrote:
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.
This probably won't cause a dq, as HW did look over the mods apparently, it's just that a proper response would be better.Ascendance wrote:
... No more dq pls
it always blocks mappers' progress like ridiculously that mappers have "responsibility" to explain why this pattern here and why that pattern there. yes, mappers should do that if it really cause some controversial thing, but almost every time, they are just explain obvious stuff like striked by questions in "how you can be sure that 1+1=2 is correct?" style. it's a really tired work to do in every map's thread again and again like doing same works over and over. mappers are more like teachers to tell flesh people why here and why there because they are just asking, and if they don't response they will be offended like "you dare ignore my mod?" which really pissed off mappers, and those ones who asked the question just like have no concern about how mapping works or learn to understand the map before just ask what they can't directly be aware of to let mappers solve their own problems. something like "why this jump is not same to that jump even in similar pattern style in original song's tracks?" which obviously can be generally answered back like "if you wanna same jumps in same gaps you should shout at all maps which don't use distance snap, can you please at least notice that every object in the map can emphasis different things even in same rhythm part, which is also the reason why we have so much maps without distance snapping nowadays?", and for some godly hell that's something every mappers or modders should have known. i've seen lots of talent mappers complained it because that phenomenon in community, which should be the true pity of the whole game.ZiRoX wrote:
In my opinion, this shouldn't have been requalified as some people's mods haven't been addressed properly in the following reply:
Basically:Even if their mods aren't the best, you don't like their suggestions, or whatever reason you might have, they used some of their free time looking at your map and trying to improve it in their eyes. That should be respected and their mods deserve a proper response. and the map should be respected to recieve mod.
- 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. and also why i'm rude for that response but modders won't be rude for that "mod"? WORSTPOLACKEU isn't an experienced modder is not a reason.
- 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. and they already got their proper reply for their proper mod, i've told that.
