Monstrata wrote:

I think it's fair to give the community a chance for some final words

Monstrata wrote:

After a lot of discussion, we've decided that we will flame this map in a day or two. I think it's fair to give the community a chance for some final words. I don't want to make the icons seem rushed, a lot of individual work has been put into pushing this forward, it just happens that everyone was available and ready to icon it today.

Shiirn wrote:

Monstrata wrote:

After a lot of discussion, we've decided that we will flame this map in a day or two. I think it's fair to give the community a chance for some final words. I don't want to make the icons seem rushed, a lot of individual work has been put into pushing this forward, it just happens that everyone was available and ready to icon it today.

wank wank wank wank wank wank wank


there's my words

Monstrata wrote:

After a lot of discussion, we've decided that we will flame this map in a day or two. I think it's fair to give the community a chance for some final words. I don't want to make the icons seem rushed, a lot of individual work has been put into pushing this forward, it just happens that everyone was available and ready to icon it today.

Shiirn wrote:

maximum the hormone is basically like



edge in a can

Approved Category is only for Marathon maps. Long maps with over 5 minutes of draining time fit the Approval category. Only then they are allowed to be single difficulty mapsets. If they are below 5 minutes of draining time, a full difficulty spread is needed and the map will have to be ranked instead.

XII wrote:

This isn't 5 minutes, where is the set? Or am I missing something.

Approved Category is only for Marathon maps. Long maps with over 5 minutes of draining time fit the Approval category. Only then they are allowed to be single difficulty mapsets. If they are below 5 minutes of draining time, a full difficulty spread is needed and the map will have to be ranked instead.

And isn't the approved section dead anyways? I don't see why they would break their guidelines and use a section that has been unused since 2.5 years back.

[alt][F4] wrote:

the drain time calculator is kind of broken because it doesn't really count spinners

FailureAtOsu wrote:

Extremely minor thing
02:28:885 (1,2,3,4) -
02:32:313 (9,10,11,12) -
Why does the former have a new combo but not the latter? It's the same sounds so I don't see why it would be inconsistent.

N1k0 wrote:

AR10 just feels a lot more fitting when playing this. And HP 4.5-4.7 feels more fitting than 5. idk that's just my opinion on the matter...

Battle wrote:

often times if the mp3 is edited by the user, you still use the same metadata as the source, for example if you cut a song to be shorter such as this due to it being repetitive you still keep the same metadata

Monstrata wrote:

mp3 is slightly edited yes. It's not against the current ruleset, but you're welcome to discuss it further, here: t/417977.

lilelf29 wrote:

Monstrata wrote:

mp3 is slightly edited yes. It's not against the current ruleset, but you're welcome to discuss it further, here: t/417977.

Wait it's allowed?
I thought you just linked to a thread that says you can't extend the mp3 file, unless I'm missing something.

Monstrata wrote:

It's allowed currently. The thread is a discussion about making mp3 extension against the rules. I thought i'd link it so people can discuss there instead.

lilelf29 wrote:

Monstrata wrote:

It's allowed currently. The thread is a discussion about making mp3 extension against the rules. I thought i'd link it so people can discuss there instead.

Oh damn, I know a few people that are under the impression it's not allowed and so instead are making mapsets of 4min+ songs.
Will spread the news that they don't need to.

placeholder

MillhioreF wrote:

Remember: there's nothing wrong with mapping for the graveyard.

Monstrata wrote:

Well, if you extend, you should try to make it as natural as possible too. It's sometimes quite hard to extend songs past 5 minutes, especially if theyre like just 4:01 or something. There are a lot of songs i want to map, that are like 4:40-4:50 that I just can't tastefully extend haha.

Sliproads wrote:

Monstrata wrote:

Well, if you extend, you should try to make it as natural as possible too. It's sometimes quite hard to extend songs past 5 minutes, especially if theyre like just 4:01 or something. There are a lot of songs i want to map, that are like 4:40-4:50 that I just can't tastefully extend haha.

Not every map has to be marathon size. Couldn't you just make more diffs?

Enkidu wrote:

It's quite literally 11 seconds. C'mon friend.

Microsoft Vista wrote:

monstrata reply to wank wank wank but not bob

total terror wrote:

Also the amount of >20k ranked players commenting on the playability of this map is far too high and honestly just silly.

isopaharuntikka wrote:

total terror wrote:

Also the amount of >20k ranked players commenting on the playability of this map is far too high and honestly just silly.

I haven't read this thread much, but the only opinion of a top player that I've seen is Elysion's on their stream and iirc they just said "Doesn't play well."

I think it would be a pretty neat idea to get multiple top players opinions on this map to improve it (since it is a 8.5* map...), but Monstrata might've already done that.

lilelf29 wrote:

Battle wrote:

often times if the mp3 is edited by the user, you still use the same metadata as the source, for example if you cut a song to be shorter such as this due to it being repetitive you still keep the same metadata

Editing the song to be shorter is very different to editing it to be longer.
I fail to see what point you're making?

blahpy wrote:

MillhioreF wrote:

Remember: there's nothing wrong with mapping for the graveyard.

estellia- wrote:

also vinxis the structure of your post is so fucked can you get good at being estellia- tyvm

QTS wrote:

This song should not be qualified nor ranked.

Half of the map is some kind of lullaby that is FC:able by 5 digit players, including me, this necessarily might not be a bad thing, but I personally find it unfit for a 8.5* map.

Side wrote:

QTS wrote:

This song should not be qualified nor ranked.

Half of the map is some kind of lullaby that is FC:able by 5 digit players, including me, this necessarily might not be a bad thing, but I personally find it unfit for a 8.5* map.

The same could be said about a lot of wub maps since they usually start out like 2* maps

Girl wrote:

Microsoft Vista wrote:

monstrata reply to wank wank wank but not bob

hi mothew!!

Arphimigon wrote:

Who cares about ugli aesthetics tbh
Gonna talk about other things blahblah w/e

Mod time!
I'm kinda sad that after these jumps 00:18:626 (1,2,3,4) - here that 00:19:486 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - these are so low spaced, since the later ones have the extra punchy drum to go along with them but have a lower spacing. I feel like the low spaced patterns should be before, while the jumpy/snappy sliders should be after. Swapped 3 and 4 to keep the spacing lower.
00:31:475 (1,2,3,4) - If you play these fully it creates some nice snaps with a bunch of spacing which feels cool, however on the next slider pattern here 00:33:189 (1,2,3,4) - I feel as though 00:33:189 (1,2) - these are too cramped up spacing wise to give the same feel. It's minor yes, but every little helps. A 10 degree rotation seems to make the spacing work and keep the same aesthetical style here. I don't like this change. I don't think you should play those sliders fully anyways. Well, i don't, and I find the angles to be fine as they are, taking advantage of leniency.

10 degree spacing and look

00:34:474 (5) - Unsnapped sliderend, should end later but the slider end is snapped slightly early, may want to wiggle it to place. it's snapped tnough.
(00:34:933 (1) - No idea what this is mapped to, if its an instrument, it should start on the blue tick (00:34:986 - or smth), if its mapped to the vocal, it starts on the red tick (00:35:040 - ) but ssince it coverss both its really confussing.) snapped to that buzz that definitely lands on the downbeat. The vocals are a kinda awkward transition out of the 1/4 repeats, same with the guitar that's on the blue tick, i just wanted something with a very straightforward rhythm even if it meant following something that was more a noise than a sound. I think with this set up though, the rhythm is pretty easy to see, whereas if i used a bluetick or red tick rhythm after a 1/4 repeat it would be hard to catch.
00:34:933 (1,2) - This spacing is awkwardly low compared to the slider SV here, I'd honestly suggest you lower the SV more to make it less weird to play here. Intentional anti-jumps so I have more spacing increases to work with when i transition back into 1/2 rhythms.

I used 0.8sv and it kept the look whilst making the spacing even, thus less weird to transition from

00:48:192 (3) - For editors sake, can you simplify this slider down? I have an awkward feeling this can be called out for burai for no reason idk It's not burai. It's not possible to create burais without red nodes xD.

Basically same shape but with redpoint

01:01:580 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - Well you've probably heard enough about these but still I need to say it but from a different perspective. 00:51:250 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - and 00:54:726 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - have similar spacing because the sounds are similar, now 00:58:150 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - is increased spacing because there is an extra cymbal sound, right? If that is the case, then there should be no reason to further increase the spacing to 01:01:580 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - this pattern, since the previous mentioned one is identical in sound and volume to this. oh, Bonsai already mentioned these to me with the same perspective about identical sounds. Basically, I originally wanted the entire section to be this big, and i created an imtermediate section instead with the first half. When I map, I like to create easier and more difficult versions if the music provides similar rhythms and patterns, just to keep things interesting. I want the intensity to build up here as the player continues through this section, so you can see that the jumps after the sliders get progressively larger and larger.
01:38:058 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5) - I can see that you have a bunch of different shapes here, but if possible, could you make 01:38:165 (2,4) - more vertical? I know you can just hit the slider heads and play right, but it would still encourage a more vertical and sharp snapping motion if they were more vertical. You can just rotate the sliders. Those are my favourites though ;c.
I'd also like to mention that 01:39:130 (3) - this slider is the only one that goes up a bit before it goes down, whilst being completely playable if you include leniency in the mix, it still discourages a cooler, consistent vertical play which could be happening instead, so this iss the only slider I'd suggest to make differently and move the redpoint downwards on. Sure, fixed.
02:09:830 (2,3,4,5) - Two things here.
Obvious no.1) The linear play is really awkward after an entire map of little linear movement and only snapping pretty much, so it feels plainly wrong to put in since it is so out of the maps context flow/wrist-movement-wise idk.. I like this pattern. I want a break from all the rotational flow since the song is breaking into a harsher section (and you can see the sliders changing shape).
No.2) This looks too damn neat. Needs to be MESSIER. I think the flow choice already contributes, without making the structure messy yet, because this is still part of the previous section imo.
So a solution to both of those is below I made for ya. Also at the same time, that idea/solution gets lower in spacing as the pitches lower with every sound so it seems more with the music.

ez

That's it for input that doesn't relate to aesthetics wheee hopefully it makes it more enjoyable to play cya

Shiirn wrote:

lol.

Natsu wrote:

mmm i'll give my opinion here, if this map get ranked, then any map can be, since the sliders are not different to any new mapper first map sliders, they are bad and they make the map looks ugly.

Yeah the song is chaotic, but doesn't sounds bad, but the map is chaotic and looks bad that's the difference, I always support your maps, Monstrata. But in my opinion this shouldn't be ranked in the current state, I read your responses to similar arguments to mine and they are not objetives, when you say is *art* we can recall in situations like this:

SPOILER

which I believe is happening here, anyways not every map have to be ranked and the community response you are getting is mostly negative (for what I can see in the thread), just rework that sliders, you are a good mapper and I'm sure you can build a chaotic map that looks nice and not the current one that looks like someone first attempt of mapping, sorry Monstrata, but I have to said it too.

Shiirn wrote:

I think the main thing that makes this all feel so disrespectful is that the bullshit is just really obvious. Your reasons are flimsy, your map is clearly intended to be various combinations of "ez 8* pass" "hardest ranked map" "haha its super hard half the time and super boring the other half" "I can make something extremely ugly and anti-meta too guys! and rank it!" and "i can map what i want and bullshit anything past", if I'm missing anything let me know.

I'm an honest fellow. I like it when people are honest, even if their actions aren't.


But we all know that you'd rather just let people let you do whatever the fuck you please, so since I personally have no capability of forcing you to do anything, only my own words, which are oft bereft with language that leads people to disregard me outright from offense.

I'm done dealing with your self-serving fantasy map, myself. I no longer care if you want to embarrass yourself further among any worthwhile peers. This has long since gone beyond the pale.

Monstrata wrote:

oh, Bonsai already mentioned these to me with the same perspective about identical sounds. Basically, I originally wanted the entire section to be this big, and i created an imtermediate section instead with the first half. When I map, I like to create easier and more difficult versions if the music provides similar rhythms and patterns, just to keep things interesting. I want the intensity to build up here as the player continues through this section, so you can see that the jumps after the sliders get progressively larger and larger.

1. 01:01:580 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - After a lot of discussion, I've decided its best to nerf the jumps here a bit. They've been scaled down to 0.85x their original spacing.
2. 01:41:058 (1,2) - The jump-stream has been removed and replaced with 1/4 repeat sliders.
3. 02:32:742 (1,2) - The stream here has also been replaced with 1/4 repeat sliders
4. 02:55:471 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1) - The jumps here have been scaled down by 0.8x their original spacing.

samaki wrote:

i guess monstrata can really rank anything.. lol

Zerss wrote:

The preview point doesn't seems to be snapped

rip

edit: sorry

Akali wrote:

Zerss wrote:

The preview point doesn't seems to be snapped

rip

edit: sorry

this ruins my song select experience pls fix

Zerss wrote:

The preview point doesn't seems to be snapped

rip

edit: sorry

Zerss wrote:

The preview point doesn't seems to be snapped

rip

edit: sorry

isopaharuntikka wrote:

- unused image file "konachan.com - 181663 cola_(gotouryouta) original robot ruins scenic stars.jpg"

UndeadCapulet wrote:

Zerss wrote:

The preview point doesn't seems to be snapped

rip

edit: sorry

Preview point and green lines being unsnapped isn't an unrankable issue (in fact a lot of times it's better if the preview point is unsnapped because of song select's fade-in)

Thanks for actually trying to be helpful, though!

Zerss wrote:

UndeadCapulet wrote:

Preview point and green lines being unsnapped isn't an unrankable issue (in fact a lot of times it's better if the preview point is unsnapped because of song select's fade-in)

Thanks for actually trying to be helpful, though!

Well, I already got warning from BNs about my preview points being unsnapped. I guess it's just because I'm not famous.

monstrata wrote:

Play Time: 05:00

Zerss wrote:

Well, I already got warning from BNs about my preview points being unsnapped. I guess it's just because I'm not famous.

Charles445 wrote:

Preview time is unsnapped, but it doesn't have to be snapped.
In fact, it is often better to move the preview point BEFORE the desired beat.
That way, the preview sound file starts on quietness.
Have you ever wondered why some previews POP painfully? Yeah. They started on the beat.

Spaghetti wrote:

they must've just warned you to let you know, just in case you wanted it snapped.

MrSergio wrote:

Just a little clarification on the matter: if we see other stupid comments not meant to improve the mapset we will also give silences, so be warned.
Stop the idiocy already.

Voli wrote:

hi, i guess this map can be improved a tad more before pushing it further

00:21:847 (4,6) - these arent stacked properly Its an annoying glitch in editor with stacks. I fixed it right before Pereira flamed lol.
00:34:933 (1) - what does this slider follow? i cant really hear anythin The buzz. more detailed reply on p/5282568
00:47:449 (3,1) - im pretty sure the slider blocking the reverse so shortly after is unpleasant to play and can lead to confusion (wasnt it unrankable? im not sure about this one) Uhh... no... the reverse is before the slider... so the slider goes under the repeat ...
00:48:192 (3) - why are there so many unnecessary sliderpoints in this? it looks like you literally just spun around your cursor and randomly clicked That's kinda the idea about this whole first half of the map xP...
01:00:937 (2) - ^
01:23:058 (3,2) - why are only these two sliders reversed? there isn't anything distinguishable in the song for this, to make it play better either have them all turn the same way or make a pattern just like you did here 01:25:648 (1,2,3) - : http://voli.s-ul.eu/dp9pC8eX It's just there for some chaos. It's very easy to read, and its done to create some variation in an otherwise very lame placement.
01:24:791 (3,4) - why sudden spacing change? reverse 4 and 5 please, there is nothing to be emphasized here, same goes for similar patterns after this one
01:31:862 (3,4) - and here the spacing doesnt change like that consistency pls This is just symmetriy. The jump is very small, it's not big enough to create emphasis imo so i did it for better pattern transition and design.
01:38:058 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5) - i cant grasp what this is following at all Hmm... Maybe listen again?
01:39:772 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - here too, why the sudden 1/4 slider spam..? Uh...
01:46:275 (1) - slider end sounds mistimed, at least silence it or something Uh no... This is fine, I don't know what you're hearing because th is is consistent with a lot of other sliders in this pattern, unless you have a problem with all of them xD.
01:53:257 (1,2) - if this is trying to be a blanket then blanket it :p or move it a bit away It's not trying to be a blanket.
01:56:760 (1,5) - ^
01:58:499 (1,2) - ^
02:13:776 (1,2,3) - this pattern plays very uncanny because of the sudden timing change, i'd suggest to make it a reverse NC is good enough to make players more aware of the approach circle due to a lack of follow point.
02:17:561 (3,4) - drum finishes instead of claps? sounds more fitting Claps are more fitting imo, and more consistent with how i've been hitsounding
02:36:632 - slider end sound volume on nothing just doesnt sound right The vocal doesnt cut off immediately though. It lingers. Also, the speed of the slider kinda makes the slider-end have a sort of "impact" feel.
02:40:340 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) - why aren't the claps hitsounded at ALL here? there are almost no hitsounds on all of this for no reason, put claps here: 02:40:340 (1) - 02:40:674 (4) - 02:40:786 (5) - 02:41:120 (8) - etc. i just noticed this goes on for a way longer time, why don't you hitsound the obvious claps in the music? Half of the notes you want me to put claps on already have claps? Also my hitsound rhythm here is just different from what you might be used to, but its still effective in giving rhythm.
03:03:064 (2) - since you're not following the vocals remove this and make this 03:02:810 (1) - extended slider, if you choose not to, remove 03:01:292 (1) - because the slider end ends on a high pitch and make it 2 notes instead No, I want this to be clickable.
04:45:311 (1) - very disrupting slider end sound (theres nothing in the music) silence this please I do this mainly because spinner starts don't actually get any hitsound, but i want the player to essentially have a htisound for when they click on the spinner to begin it. Hope that kinda explains it better.
03:16:894 (5,1) - very off blanket, either move somewhere else or blanket it properly
04:49:426 (1) - maybe silence spinner end more Not necessary...

-Space- wrote:

Red timing sections are inconsistent with the downbeat at:

03:32:506 (3) - (Downbeat here from red tick)

03:40:078 (3) - (Downbeat is here? Why?, would be consistent to be put at 03:40:582 (5) imo)

Hula wrote:

Before this map gets too much attention into the minutiae, a certain level of effort and quality should be provided by Monstrata which at a glance in the editor isn't there.

Every slider is randomly made, even for sounds that are identical for an entire phrase and result in weird looking flow between sliders. Particularly bad in the 1/4 spam section 02:26:362 (1) - , the map would look a ton better if the sliders were just randomly drawn but thoughtfully made. https://osu.ppy.sh/forum/p/5275233

The section at 02:26:362 (1) - with all the 1/4 slider spam. There's not an ounce of 1/4 in the rhythm, this is at detriment to the map, since it should be 1/2, yet there is nothing on the 1/4 ticks. Though they're sliders, the sliderend should still be treated as part of the object, it's just the weaker partner of the head and tail. Rhythm choice here could be vastly improved. (The vocals aren't 1/4) They are there for design, with a very simple rhythm. They absolutely fit and are one of the highlights of the map. I'm sad you don't like them .

The hitsounding seems to use kick samples in random places on red ticks where there isn't any kicks to be emphasised, could you explain why you're doing that? I'm not following the song entirely because what's the point of hitsounding if all you do is follow exactly what the song has? Hitsounding is about creating a new rhythm for players that tastefully uses what rhythms the song has to offer, and giving a unique spin to it to fit the rhythm you've picked.

Onto other stuff.

00:39:852 (6) - I don't see any reason for a repeat slider here. This is the weakest object in the whole rhythm and it is just odd. This is there to give a 1/1 pause basically, since the vocal begins on a red tick instead of the downbeat.
00:40:172 (1) - This is the wrong hitsound on here, you've used a kick, but there should be some sort of clap, or something very weak. You've placed a kick and made a false rhythm, the worst kind of hitsounding. Hitsounding should be used to accent the rhythms of a song and give good player feedback. I want to emphasize the vocals too.

00:43:047 (4,5) - Wouldn't you say this is the best opportunity for 1/2 spam with this rhythm? The choice in these are kind of underwhelming. No, i don't think 1/2 spam fits this rhythm, and I consider myself a connoseur of 1/2 spam.
00:44:770 (5,6) - ^ etc. you know which ones i mean

00:48:737 (2) - Why is this a slider here? Slider should go here 00:48:623 (1) - this then matches the vocals. This matches the vocals too... there are two syllables being sung. I'm just making both syllables clickable instead of putting a slider-end on the second syllable. Applies to below.
00:49:515 (1) - ^
00:50:384 (1) - ^ and so on.


Sorry, I cannot mod anymore, the song grinds my gears, other people are modding, and I really don't feel like you're taking this map seriously with how it's mapped, so I can't justify spending more time, sorry and good luck.

AustinsGuitar wrote:

love the second part of the map. Maybe a larger spred on the streams at 03:38:822 - and 03:38:822 - .... just think it would add to a equalization of difficulty level and make that part of the map not 100%'able by everyone playing it .-. GREAT MAP KEEP IT UP!

GladiOol wrote:

00:28:922 (1,2,3,4,5) - Why is the spacing different from the (1,2,3) at 00:28:071 I feel it just generates an awkward slow down because the momentum from the spacing+slider (jump)speed before is way quicker. Next to that, squares at 282 bpm play like shit. The angle is different, and this is a lot more single-tap. This is the beginning of the 280 bpm single tap so I do want to give the players at least a few seconds to adjust into the playstyle, hence why the first pattern you mentioned is also very similar to an alternator-style pattern.

00:34:933 (1,2,3) - Why is the spacing between slider end (1) and (2) smaller than the spacing between (2) and (3)? It looks really bad.

00:38:356 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - At (5) the music build up happens, yet the jumps only start on (6). Why? To show the spacing is slowly spirally out into chaos. I don't want it to be an instant change, I want it to feel more gradual.

00:43:690 (2,3,4) - Spacing too short again. It feels cramped yet I don't get a cramped feeling at this music at all. It doesn't make any sense to slow it down here. This feels fine to me...

00:48:192 (3) - Why is this 1/4 kickslider? Everything before hand was 1/2 x 2 sliders. it's a rhythm variation which still respects clicking rhythm. It's very straightforward i hope.

01:24:363 (1) - Why is this a 1/2 slider? All the previous patterns have only the vocals on 1/2, the rest 1/3. (See 00:21:206 (1) - for example.) Rhythm variance. I think it works fine here. Having 4 and then 5 kickslider sets is weird imo... so i did 4, 4, and started earlier than vocals.

01:36:505 (2) - The vocals are 1/3 here. Mapping this on a blue tick to somehow follow a bit of vocals is already pretty silly as it stands, but it's also completely wrong in this occasion. No, its 1/4

01:41:058 (1,2) - Why 1/4 and not a long 1/1 like in the three patterns before that? Or at least double 1/2 to emphasize on the bass. This is the same clicking rhythm and works better imo.

02:02:564 (2,3,4,5) - Please no squares. Please

02:09:830 (2,3,4,5) - Plays better if the movement was back&forth. I want the linear snap. Arphi's mod reply for more indepth reasoning.

02:15:605 (3,4,1) - Why is the spacing here so drastically shorter than 02:14:679 (3,4,1) - It's about relative emphasis. Relative to the pattern 3>4>1 is correctly emphasized.

02:21:427 (4,5) - You should keep the short spacing pattern for the vocals only. Nah, I want it to be for all 1/2's here because it creates this feeling for the player where they think hey can alternate here, and then have their hopes dashed when the last object is a jump.

02:39:240 (6,7,8,9,10) - Come on, you're not even trying to make it look decent, let alone follow the same spacing. Yea, thats kinda the point xD.

03:16:390 (3,4,5,6) - (3,4) has the higher pitch, so there should be the increased spacing. Instead on a break in vocals we get a jump. Why? Cuz the jump emphasizes the higher pitch.

I'm stopping here. This map is cool for your friends to play, to show them what crazy things you can accomplish in your editor. This map is like the most played map on Super Mario Maker. Adding in all the crazy elements and people will enjoy it for what it is, a gimmick. But gimmicks should not be ranked. Ranked maps need to have quality control to it, to ensure that stuff like this does not get through. But it did. I truthfully cannot understand how anybody could deem this worthy of ranking in its current state. Keep gimmick maps out of ranked.

Nelly wrote:

The first thing I want to say its this map. Okay, the song is very sick,but these fucking notes are godly awful. Not THE WORST but still. Its just a slider spam that it requires a hugs randon shot.

And last, fun. Pretty much every map should be player with fun. /.../ but he forgot the quality of this map.

Monstrata wrote:

I think you're missing the central theme of this map, but hopefully I explained (MY PERSONAL) reasonable points as best I could. I'm kinda looking forward to moddingv2 so I don't have to keep copy/pasting replies /.../

1. All clear.

1. 00:19:271 (4,1) - I feel since you have a jump at 00:18:411 (4,1) it would be fitting to have one here as well, especially due to the fact that it would help emphasize the first kick.
2. 00:21:206 - This whole section is just really boring. There's so much you can do to emphasize the start of certain vocals like at 00:21:419 but it's just the same spacing as everything else. Now, don't get me wrong; I do recognize you are mapping to the guitar here. However, you can do that while also representing the vocals with differing spacing concurrently. The vocals are loud (I mean come on, they are yelling basically) and deserve some form of representation, and I feel it would be best represented via spacing. This applies for the next ~30 seconds.
3. 00:22:489 (1,2,3) - This plays very awkwardly. In 00:24:200 (1,2,3) and 00:25:911 (1,2,3) you have tame flow with even spacing, whereas in this pattern, the flow is very choppy and abstract, and the spacing is seemlingly random.
4. 00:32:546 (2,3) - Spacing here can be increased for emphasis on the guitar-sounding thing like you did at 00:30:943 (4,5) and 00:29:241 (4,5) very well.
5. 00:40:172 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5) - Ok, so to begin, I recognize you are mapping to the vocals here, and I agree with that decision. However, in the song, the singer is gaining momentum for the upcoming section which is very intense, and I feel this can be represented with the jumps with slowly increasing spacing, or even just 00:40:918 (1,2,3,4,5) having a definitively larger spacing compared to 00:40:172 (1,2,3,4,5,6) . It feels weird to just have massive jumps off the bat in a measure that is supposed to gain momentum for the upcoming craziness.
6. 00:41:771 - Alright, so in this upcoming section, I like to look at it in 4 parts, each part representing 2 measures each. While there's a few spacing inconsistencies, one I would like to point out is how 00:43:260 (5,1) has a significantly lower spacing than 00:44:984 (6,1) and 00:46:699 (4,1) which I understand because the break in flow is extremely sharp, but the spacing still feels low compared to the other similar sections, and it can be increased to emphasize the downbeat better. Additionally, 00:48:192 (3) is a repeat slider whereas 00:46:484 and the rest of the similar sections in the 4 parts consist of two 1/2 sliders, and it doesn't make sense in my eyes.
7. 00:49:407 (4,1) - The spacing between these two notes should be increased because there is a powerful vocal syllable on the downbeat, which you represented at 00:50:384 and 00:52:986 but not here.
8. 00:55:579 - I like to look at the next 8 measures as the first 4 measures repeated once. Therefor, they should have somewhat similar spacing. However, from 00:59:022 and onwards, your spacing drastically increases which doesn't make sense considering the song hasn't gotten any more intense than the last 4 measures.
9. 01:22:624 - The suggestions from 00:21:206 apply here as well.
10. 01:41:058 (1,2,1) - The spacing in this pattern doesn't make sense. If anything, it should either be equidistant or have 01:41:058 (1,2) closer together than 01:41:272 (2,1) to emphasize the downbeat and to emphasize a changing of energy in the song.
11. 01:41:487 - In this section, I recognize that you mapped the bass/guitar/percussion with sliders. Similar to the previously mentioned sections, the spacing here is really boring, and could be spiced up with increased spacing on percussion hits to emphasize them. You have it in some percussion hits but not all or even most.
12. 02:13:776 (1,2,3,1) - The spacing in this pattern should be lower due to the fact that the timing change make it really difficult to hit to begin with, and the fact that the spacing increases while everything except the percussion going silent doesn't fit the song too well. I get that you need to emphasize the percussion, but currently I find it to be too extreme when coupled with the shift in timing.
13. 02:43:239 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - You had a build-up in spacing at 02:39:686 (1,2,1,2,1,2) which plays lovely because the momentum in the vocals increases over this time period, but you didn't do it here when it's essentially the same thing.
14. 03:31:498 (1) - Spacing can be increased to emphasize the crash better.
15. 04:01:581 (1) - Spacing can be increased to emphasize the introduction of the guitar.

QTS wrote:

Doesn't the user rating tell you something about this map?

Because it seems pretty obvious to me and a large amount of the community that this map should NOT, under any circumstances, be ranked.

First of all, the map is VERY disliked. This is probably due to the actual quality of the beatmap where I've to agree with Nelly:

Nelly wrote:

The first thing I want to say its this map. Okay, the song is very sick,but these fucking notes are godly awful. Not THE WORST but still. Its just a slider spam that it requires a hugs randon shot.

And last, fun. Pretty much every map should be player with fun. /.../ but he forgot the quality of this map.

That the quality of the map in this case is non-existant.

Secondly, this map just seems, a spam of wierd sliders, TAG-4 Jumps, etc.

I love the song, and I would love for the map to go somewhere but like it is right now? No way. I think it's awful in its current state and the fact that it even got qualified makes me feel that BN:s are not taking it seriously at all.

Also, if you don't believe me and want some more "insight" from the community, go ahead and read the Reddit thread of this map, because right now it feels like Mr. Monstrata isn't listening to what the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY thinks of the map, but instead just says thinks like:

Monstrata wrote:

I think you're missing the central theme of this map, but hopefully I explained (MY PERSONAL) reasonable points as best I could. I'm kinda looking forward to moddingv2 so I don't have to keep copy/pasting replies /.../

Anyhow, that's my opinions and some of the communities. And here is the link to the reddit thread.

You're listening to a VOCAL minority, not an OVERWHELMING majority. Reddit is not an OVERWHELMING portion of the community. Also, I understand that a player of any rank can point out technical and aesthetic flaws in a map of any difficulty. There are a ton of really helpful members of the community that have contributed a massive amount to maps that they can't pass. However, when it comes to judging a map's "fun" amount, how can Nelly tell if it's a fun map when he can't even pass it? And where are the facts? You can't just blindly say a map isn't fun and then not contribute anything...

QTS wrote:

Doesn't the user rating tell you something about this map?

Because it seems pretty obvious to me and a large amount of the community that this map should NOT, under any circumstances, be ranked.

First of all, the map is VERY disliked. This is probably due to the actual quality of the beatmap where I've to agree with Nelly:

Rapthorn wrote:

You're listening to a VOCAL minority, not an OVERWHELMING majority. Reddit is not an OVERWHELMING portion of the community. Also, I understand that a player of any rank can point out technical and aesthetic flaws in a map of any difficulty. There are a ton of really helpful members of the community that have contributed a massive amount to maps that they can't pass. However, when it comes to judging a map's "fun" amount, how can Nelly tell if it's a fun map when he can't even pass it? And where are the facts? You can't just blindly say a map isn't fun and then not contribute anything...

I'd say the user rating pretty much shows an overwhelming majority, being the lowest rated map ever made by a mile and all.

QTS wrote:

Doesn't the user rating tell you something about this map?

Because it seems pretty obvious to me and a large amount of the community that this map should NOT, under any circumstances, be ranked.

First of all, the map is VERY disliked. This is probably due to the actual quality of the beatmap where I've to agree with Nelly:

Nelly wrote:

The first thing I want to say its this map. Okay, the song is very sick,but these fucking notes are godly awful. Not THE WORST but still. Its just a slider spam that it requires a hugs randon shot.

And last, fun. Pretty much every map should be player with fun. /.../ but he forgot the quality of this map.

That the quality of the map in this case is non-existant.

Secondly, this map just seems, a spam of wierd sliders, TAG-4 Jumps, etc.

I love the song, and I would love for the map to go somewhere but like it is right now? No way. I think it's awful in its current state and the fact that it even got qualified makes me feel that BN:s are not taking it seriously at all.

Also, if you don't believe me and want some more "insight" from the community, go ahead and read the Reddit thread of this map, because right now it feels like Mr. Monstrata isn't listening to what the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY thinks of the map, but instead just says thinks like:

Monstrata wrote:

I think you're missing the central theme of this map, but hopefully I explained (MY PERSONAL) reasonable points as best I could. I'm kinda looking forward to moddingv2 so I don't have to keep copy/pasting replies /.../

Anyhow, that's my opinions and some of the communities. And here is the link to the reddit thread.