Monstrata wrote:

Maybe don't aim to rank/qualify a map on specific dates so there's not so much stress in fending off otherwise helpful remarks.

3312 wrote:

vakekok
[Anx's N]
tbh theres kinda too much overlaps even tho i kno its like 4/1 buts its still kinda taxing for new players to read idk - not really confusing i think. i used the same positions of previous notes repeatedly, but nothing like overlaps.
also im kinda confused on where you're focusing at,sometimes you focus on vocal and suddenly you focus on the drums/snares/idk - focus on whatever is most prominent is how i roll tbh. always worked for me.
01:12:500 (3) - nc since the girl strts talking again in here - applied
01:35:804 - y dont put a note here,feels kinda fitting if you put a note here tbh - trying to play it safe and avoid issues that involve spinner gap on lower diffs. if a BN/QAT specifically says thats its fine to map this, ill do it.
01:41:965 (3,1) - feel kinda clunky for new players to play - changed the angle
02:07:679 (2,3,1) - why didnt you make it straight like what u did w 02:08:750 (2,3,1) - n 02:09:822 (2,3,1) - as much as i love straight sliders, i feel even this part would feel too stiff if i didnt add something to BREAK THE SNOW
02:12:500 (3,4) - would be better if you can try to blanket this but idk doesnt rlly look like possible - its possible, and i just fixed it. hoo hah!
02:43:572 (1,2,3,1,2,3,4) - kinda feels weird that you only put a long reverse slider (1/1 1/2 idk) 02:43:572 (1) - in a part with the same sound repeated several times - if i kepy with the 1/1+1/2, it would feel repetitive as all hell, and definately not exciting to play.
03:00:715 (1,2) - parts like this are better if mapped like this imo - id be ignoring alot of drum kicks if i did that. drums take more priority than the synth imo.

Yukiyo wrote:

Kroytz forced asked me to look at Anxient's Normal so here I am

-> check all blankets again

-> read this

IRC log where I started modding

2017-02-09 16:44 Kroytz: okay yukiyo
2017-02-09 16:44 Kroytz: unfortunately its still a mod req but, on a single difficulty. normal level. its for snow drive ><;;
2017-02-09 16:44 Kroytz: i got a different request
2017-02-09 16:44 Kroytz: do you thinkyou can help?
2017-02-09 16:44 Yukiyo: normal difficulty?
2017-02-09 16:44 Yukiyo: Ugh
2017-02-09 16:44 Kroytz: goes by quickly at least~
2017-02-09 16:44 Kroytz: free KD tho? ;D
2017-02-09 16:45 Yukiyo: I don't think I can keep up with high level disscussions on normals
2017-02-09 16:45 Yukiyo: i dont kd - he lied.
2017-02-09 16:45 Kroytz: eh
2017-02-09 16:45 Kroytz: I guess
2017-02-09 16:47 Yukiyo: do ppl even blanket these days?
2017-02-09 16:47 Kroytz: yes
2017-02-09 16:47 Yukiyo: well I guess anxient doesn't - coz i suck at it.
2017-02-09 16:47 Kroytz: ahah..ha..ha.
2017-02-09 16:48 Yukiyo: [http://puu.sh/tVuNL/b130075868.jpg LOOK AT THIS ABOMINATION] - hey i fixed that >:[
2017-02-09 16:48 Kroytz: yeah I saw that too lol
2017-02-09 16:48 Yukiyo: 01:02:858 (2,3) - i-is it really a problem?
2017-02-09 16:49 Yukiyo: why does that even
2017-02-09 16:49 Yukiyo: it shifts the focus on the white beat of the slider
2017-02-09 16:49 Yukiyo: when accounting for the vocals that's bs
2017-02-09 16:49 Kroytz: ask him not meeeeeeee
2017-02-09 16:49 Yukiyo: imo
2017-02-09 16:49 Yukiyo: you asked me to look
2017-02-09 16:50 Kroytz: I mean like, in mod post thing yknow
2017-02-09 16:50 Yukiyo: I can post this log
2017-02-09 16:52 Yukiyo: 01:15:447 (3) - missing the great big white tick ;( - ok sweetie
2017-02-09 16:52 Yukiyo: 01:22:411 (3,3) - using the same space here feels awkward - same tbh
2017-02-09 16:52 Yukiyo: and gives
2017-02-09 16:53 Yukiyo: ... it's jus something you haven't done before
2017-02-09 16:53 Yukiyo: ok I'll do the rest via post
2017-02-09 16:53 Yukiyo: xd
2017-02-09 16:53 Yukiyo: sorryy
2017-02-09 16:53 Kroytz: ty~ ^^;
2017-02-09 16:53 Yukiyo: XDDD
2017-02-09 16:53 Kroytz: XD
2017-02-09 ??:?? Anxient: XD

02:06:072 (1,2) - why not use the actual 1/3 rhythm here should not cause any problems if placed correctly it's a normal step it up (and that of a 230bpm song at that) - it felt like using 1/3 in a 230 bpm song would be too fast (rhythm wise anyway). Like ermahgerd so sudden yo!
02:26:429 (1,2,3,4) - this embodies alot less intensity than 02:24:286 (1,2,3,4) - ... make them the same, vocally speaking the same stuff is happening - they are though? i mean sure the repeat is in different places but thats because of the vocals.
02:26:429 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - Why are those the same rhythms while the second combo totally changes up vocals and increases intensity - changed it up a bit.
02:57:500 (3) - I think a reverse silder would be a better way of capturing the long held sound as the player is not pressing anything while still getting the drums. Also it creats rhthym parellilsm with 02:56:429 (1) - which are both held notes and in this sense equal. - it would feel to repetitive if i did that, no?
03:17:858 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - Too many repeat sliders for the amount of build up intensity imo - although i disagree , i agree i went overboard on the repeat sliders. changed some up.

There seem to be alot of inconsistency in similar parts with different rhythm though I am not a professional when it comes to normals - reeeee

Isuck - rlynow

- Rain - wrote:

Anxients

00:10:358 (1,2,3) - Might seem jaring for a new player going from the vocals to the back beat then back to the vocals, maybe 2 3/2 sliders would work better? - spread would be weird considering that if i did that it would be another easy diff
02:18:929 - Feels Very empty considering there is clear things that could be mapped here - im keeping the consistemcy with the pause i put 02:16:116 -
02:44:643 (2,3) - Considering how this has been expressed before in the song, i feel like consistency in rhythm choices would help a new player more than having changes just to make it feel new, it would make more sense to me to use this change in the last kiai rather than here. - you call it variety, i call it increasing the difficulty. a map's no fun if it doesnt get harder imo :p plus i think its pretty fine as is. no need to change anything

Sorry for the short mod, didnt have much time

sdafsf wrote:

anxient's normal

00:57:500 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - this section is all the same rhytm and yet you decided to chose 3 different ways to represent it. for the last combo you even mapped a different sound. it should be consistent imo - keeping the first one, made the third variety consistent with the 2nd variety
01:27:902 (2) - there is not sound on this red tick. i would choose a rhythm that closely follows the music in a normal diff. - nice
01:28:974 (2) - ^
01:30:045 (2) - ^ - catch
02:43:572 (1) - this section is mapped too differently to this imo 03:35:000 (1) - . if one kiai has to be more intense it should be the last kiai. the only kiai you chose to map in a very hard and intense way was the middle one which is a poor decision imo.i would either make them all consistent or make the last kiai the hardest(preferable even the arigato kiai). - buffed kiai 3.1, left the arigatou kiai alone coz i wanted it to feel like a finale (not too hard, dropping the diff)
03:59:643 (1) - make this end hitsound louder - nah

bad mod sorry . i didnt really find anything bad so i tried hard to find things i dont like - you did pretty great :thinking:

-himei wrote:

uh i guess i missed something from raikozen aka graveyard mapper for relax mod

My Angel Azusa wrote:

moph
00:09:837 (3) - im wondering why you dont choose to NC this cuz sv has changed a lot and the length of slider is much shorter than (1). Kinda confused to read for 00:09:301 (1,2,3,4) - lol
I mean I think its far from unreadable but if DQ'd sure will change. 00:09:301 (1,2) - is where the SV increased (where the NC is) and 00:09:837 (3,4) - just goes back to the SV before so its not hard to read

00:22:143 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - this seems very weird tbh, all beats here sound similar but you use a very different spacing for 00:22:143 (1,2,3,4) - and 00:22:679 (5,6,7,8) - . The first part 00:22:143 (1,2,3,4) - is well, mapped to the song. The jump between 00:22:277 (2,3) - is to emphasize (3) for obvious reasons. The second bar 00:22:679 (5,6,7,8) - however is expressing the repetition in the song, as the music repeats for another bar the movement also reflects that, mimicking the last set of movements from the previous bar which is why there isn't a jump. I figured this would be more interesting than repeating the same pattern.

Besides, from 00:27:500 - it makes sense for you to use 0.75x since usic is recurring but its less intense. But your ds and sv suddenly decreased so much....examples are 00:29:643 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,6) - and 00:21:072 (1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - a huge difference imo. 00:29:643 (1,2,3,4) - should at least ctrl+G 00:29:911 (2,4) - lol
uh they're different because the song is very different between the two sections. 00:21:072 (1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - percussion wise this section always has something every 1/1 and 00:29:643 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,6) - only has percussion every 2/1. It is a pretty noticeable difference and acts as a calmer section before the song picks up again. That is why there is a significant DS to express that point. 00:29:643 (1,2,3,4) - is also spaced lower than than 00:27:500 (1,2,3,4) - because its pitched lower, thought this would fit well with the music.

00:35:000 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - flow is hard to follow, also if you look at what ure doing 00:26:429 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - the stack kinda breaks the flow.
how is the flow hard to follow exactly? If you're wondering why 00:35:536 (5,6,7,8) - is stacked, that's because the drums happens in pairs and 00:35:536 (5,7) - should be emphasized more which is the whole point to the starting and stopping motion. 00:26:965 (5,6,7,8) - is different as every note has the same drum which is why there is movement to each note.

01:13:572 (6) - NC
shit.

02:28:572 (1,2) - 02:29:643 (1,2) - spacing is inconsistent
Whole point is that the pattern goes forward backwards backward with increased spacing to kinda add build up for the following part. I think it fits additionally in the second half the vocal raises in pitch so the music builds up too

02:51:072 (1) - this is a very obvious 1/4 stream tbh
I'd pretty sure this is 1/6 lol. Sounds a bit off but definitely not 1/4 as I count 7 beats. Additionally I don't think a stream fits here.

03:56:429 (1,2,3,4,1,2) - spacing is way too small for kiai, you used large spacings for 03:55:090 (5,1,2,3,4,5) - etc anyways
I thought lower spacing would be a nice way to tie off the map after that intense section. If DQ'd I'll make the spacing larger but imo not an issue.

Yuii- wrote:

02:03:661 (3,1) - This still hasn't been fixed, and it does not affect any of the before/previous patterns as mentioned in p/5684862 . This circle should be place elsewhere because it truly was a mistake from Raikozen, which was mentioned a couple of months ago and still has not been fixed.

My Angel Azusa wrote:

Nino
01:18:393 (1) - why nc for emphasis
02:37:947 (5,1) - nazi blanket xdd
03:17:724 (3) - should break it to 2 circles cuz its different from 03:17:456 (1,2) - if u listen carefully mainly for structure consistent tho and the drum sound isnt the sound im following :p
03:24:889 - 03:25:291 - why ignored lul mainly for emphasis on the drum sound, for impact in gameplay xd

1. 00:18:929 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - Let's just go in-depth for on this pattern as an example. Just by looking at this and listening to the music I can't figure out at all what you are trying to emphasize in the music. The most intuitive thing would be the melody as it's by far the most dominant, however that doesn't fit as you are using big spacing from 1 to 2 which is totally fine, but on 3 the spacing gets extremely low in comparison to the previous two objects. Afterwards you are using 4 circles to...yeah, I really have no idea what you are trying to express with those. Would be completely fine if there was something special like you have 00:20:804 (4,5,1) - here (where the melody also hits the red tick to make the explanation short) but that's not the case. So to summarize this pattern, which was only an example of all the thousand similar patterns you have in this difficulty, it's purely random and totally ignoring the music as you are not doing what the music suggests. I'm not saying that the whole map is flawed as you did it correctly at some points, but a lot of patterns are really similar and thus not really expressing the music.
2. 00:24:286 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - In what way is this pattern a lot more intense than everything before? From the objective perspective it seems like you tried to emphasize the different pitches correctly, however that's only partly the case. 00:22:143 (1,1,2,1,2,1) - here you did completely fine, it's extremely noticable that the pitch went a lot higher and another weird noisy sound appears but for some reason you totally escalate with the spacing two measures later and basically make it non-sense as the music gets a lot calmer...and any explanation like "the section is pretty much about to end so I want to emphasize that) doesn't really work as it's not really noticable in the music (and no where near expectable when listening to the song the first time anyway) so there's that.
3. 00:30:715 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - So I can clearly see that you tried to emphasize the higher pitch by using a pattern with higher density, which is totally fine, however you aren't even nearly doing the same 00:32:858 (1,2,3,4,5) - here which is like super confusing because it's just inconsistent, not only density-wise but even spacing-wise it's completely different with not really being anyhing different in the music that gives the player the feeling that the sudden change is justified.
4. 00:36:072 - For the ghost stream that actually is already weird enough and not justified at all (yes, your explanation for them aren't satisfying at all and don't really make sense Kroytz), it's even more weird that you aren't highlighting the drums that for some reason land on some red ticks, so basically another major issue where you pretty much just ignore the music.
5. 00:43:572 (1,2) - Hm, ignoring the 1/2 vocals here, mapping the 1/2 melody 00:44:375 (3,4) - here and then all of a sudden give the vocals some love 00:47:858 (1,2,3) - here...

1. 00:57:233 (4) - This is imo pretty much the same as the white tick on the slidertail of 00:52:679 (4) - so there should be another 1/1 gap to emphasis the strong upcoming melody instead of the vocals in this case, the 1/2 just feels really random to me because there's like exactly the same thing before but you just start adding objects to it when there's no reason to except than trying to build emphasis which can't really happen when you start going inconsistent.
2. 01:09:286 (1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5) - Extremely counter-intuitive that these two bursts lack hitsounding (and thus feedback) so hard when you even mapped a stream with normal hitsounding to a non-existent thing, don't you think?
3. 01:19:733 (4) - Not mapped to the vocals when you do it every time later on?
4. 02:05:358 (2,3,4) - I'm wondering how this is supposed to be readable without an extra NC / good readable pattern. Stacked 1/3's are an extreme pain to read and since there's no special NC the player will still expect the rhythm to be either 1/2 or 1/4 just like usual, so in this case the player would tap 1/4s because there's no way to predict / read the 1/3's properly.
5. Sometimes there are also patterns like 02:10:893 (1,3) - with no real (or clear) concept behind them, so they feel really forced when playing because the pattern is kinda special but there's no music making it fit or anything else that makes it more intuitive
6. 02:23:750 (1,2,1,2) - lol
7. 02:51:072 (1,2,3,1) - Since most objects were 1/4 anyway there's nothing wrong with doing the same same here (let alone that there are some 1/4 repeats with a really similar spacing) and 1/8's on this BPM are extremely punishing, so it's just really unneccesary to do this imo.

GaterRaider wrote:

@Stjpa:

i guess its time for a break; playing isnt fun at all anymore, i suck at mapping so i cant enjoy it either and modding is meh

You should stick to your profile description since your mod is a whole lot of rambling garbage that you felt the need to put a summary at the bottom. Yes it sounds rude and harsh, but honestly that's just the truth and there's no other way to say it.

GaterRaider wrote:

I don't know how mappers put up with shit like this. If you can't express yourself with a thousand words maybe you shouldn't post here. You talk about things not making sense from an objective perspective and list up a bunch of stuff that are your personal opinion and nothing more, no matter how hard you try to spin it any other way. I don't know in which echo chamber you live in to have seen hate on this map literally everywhere. Maybe you should step out of your bubble for a bit and ignore the circlejerk you see by a few select people in this thread.

Stjpa wrote:

1. 00:18:929 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - Let's just go in-depth for on this pattern as an example. Just by looking at this and listening to the music I can't figure out at all what you are trying to emphasize in the music. The most intuitive thing would be the melody as it's by far the most dominant, however that doesn't fit as you are using big spacing from 1 to 2 which is totally fine, but on 3 the spacing gets extremely low in comparison to the previous two objects. Afterwards you are using 4 circles to...yeah, I really have no idea what you are trying to express with those. Would be completely fine if there was something special like you have 00:20:804 (4,5,1) - here (where the melody also hits the red tick to make the explanation short) but that's not the case. So to summarize this pattern, which was only an example of all the thousand similar patterns you have in this difficulty, it's purely random and totally ignoring the music as you are not doing what the music suggests. I'm not saying that the whole map is flawed as you did it correctly at some points, but a lot of patterns are really similar and thus not really expressing the music.

Stjpa wrote:

00:24:286 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - In what way is this pattern a lot more intense than everything before? From the objective perspective it seems like you tried to emphasize the different pitches correctly, however that's only partly the case. 00:22:143 (1,1,2,1,2,1) - here you did completely fine, it's extremely noticable that the pitch went a lot higher and another weird noisy sound appears but for some reason you totally escalate with the spacing two measures later and basically make it non-sense as the music gets a lot calmer...and any explanation like "the section is pretty much about to end so I want to emphasize that) doesn't really work as it's not really noticable in the music (and no where near expectable when listening to the song the first time anyway) so there's that.

ok i might kinda agree that this is a bit overhauled, but it also reflects the same pitch change as previously, i do that in other things you pointed out as well

Stjpa wrote:

00:30:715 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - So I can clearly see that you tried to emphasize the higher pitch by using a pattern with higher density, which is totally fine, however you aren't even nearly doing the same 00:32:858 (1,2,3,4,5) - here which is like super confusing because it's just inconsistent, not only density-wise but even spacing-wise it's completely different with not really being anyhing different in the music that gives the player the feeling that the sudden change is justified.

Stjpa wrote:

00:36:072 - For the ghost stream that actually is already weird enough and not justified at all (yes, your explanation for them aren't satisfying at all and don't really make sense Kroytz), it's even more weird that you aren't highlighting the drums that for some reason land on some red ticks, so basically another major issue where you pretty much just ignore the music.

Stjpa wrote:

00:43:572 (1,2) - Hm, ignoring the 1/2 vocals here, mapping the 1/2 melody 00:44:375 (3,4) - here and then all of a sudden give the vocals some love 00:47:858 (1,2,3) - here...

Stjpa wrote:

These issues are pretty much in the whole map. However, the by far biggest issue in this diff are the screenjumps.

Stjpa wrote:

screenjumps.

Stjpa wrote:

00:48:929 - in the section starting here you start placing jumps in a way that is not understandable for anyone who listens to the music properly when playing. Because of all the screenjumps you placed here all the emphasis you tried to use in the kiais, which are unarguably the most intense sections in the song by far, completely lose its emphasis and meaning as they are mapped the same way as in non-kiai parts even though they are stronger. Is that intuitive? Not really. Does it make sense? Not at all, and I'm sure you can agree on it, at least a lot of other people who aren't bad at modding / mapping or whatever can. This is just a very big flaw in the maps concepts which is crucial as maps are supposed to reflect the music, which doesn't happen here when you do something like this.

Stjpa wrote:

1. 00:57:233 (4) - This is imo pretty much the same as the white tick on the slidertail of 00:52:679 (4) - so there should be another 1/1 gap to emphasis the strong upcoming melody instead of the vocals in this case, the 1/2 just feels really random to me because there's like exactly the same thing before but you just start adding objects to it when there's no reason to except than trying to build emphasis which can't really happen when you start going inconsistent.

Stjpa wrote:

01:09:286 (1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5) - Extremely counter-intuitive that these two bursts lack hitsounding (and thus feedback) so hard when you even mapped a stream with normal hitsounding to a non-existent thing, don't you think?

Stjpa wrote:

01:19:733 (4) - Not mapped to the vocals when you do it every time later on?

Stjpa wrote:

02:05:358 (2,3,4) - I'm wondering how this is supposed to be readable without an extra NC / good readable pattern. Stacked 1/3's are an extreme pain to read and since there's no special NC the player will still expect the rhythm to be either 1/2 or 1/4 just like usual, so in this case the player would tap 1/4s because there's no way to predict / read the 1/3's properly.

Stjpa wrote:

Sometimes there are also patterns like 02:10:893 (1,3) - with no real (or clear) concept behind them, so they feel really forced when playing because the pattern is kinda special but there's no music making it fit or anything else that makes it more intuitive 02:23:750 (1,2,1,2) - lol 02:51:072 (1,2,3,1) - Since most objects were 1/4 anyway there's nothing wrong with doing the same same here (let alone that there are some 1/4 repeats with a really similar spacing) and 1/8's on this BPM are extremely punishing, so it's just really unneccesary to do this imo.

Stjpa wrote:

Yes it sounds rude and harsh, but honestly that's just the truth and there's no other way to say it

Raikozen wrote:

i guess i won't blame you if you won't hear it for the first time, but theres actually a quite quiet 1/2 percussion beat in this part

Raikozen wrote:

i guess i won't blame you if you won't hear it for the first time, but theres actually a quite quiet 1/2 percussion beat in this part

Raikozen wrote:

ok i might kinda agree that this is a bit overhauled, but it also reflects the same pitch change as previously, i do that in other things you pointed out as well

Raikozen wrote:

the reason for that is that i bulit up for hitfinish on 00:31:786 (1) -

Raikozen wrote:

this is the one objective thing i kinda agree on, i just noticed theres no 1/4 in melody there LOL but still the whole section builds up nicely to the next post-stream section so it's actually negligible if there is a stream there or not since it's still a transition to another part of the music without the noises in the previous one, and the stream shows how you can distinguish that from the previous part

Raikozen wrote:

are you deaf? there are no 1/2 vocals in there, this is a perfect place to use two 1/1 sliders
well... and later on i map melody cuz there are no vocals in there?
and then i emphasized vocals cuz they are the most dominant thing? i legit dont wanna be obnoxious at this point but holy fucking shit could you like rehear stuff before you say something?

Raikozen wrote:

you might not have noticed, but whole map is bulit around these screenjumps, and that's the style i followed in this map. this map is made to make it feel massive and spacious, so it gives the extra vibe to the expirienced player who plays it, since the song itself has some great buildup points in my opinion, and it fits well also

Raikozen wrote:

how ununderstandable that i put 1/2 jumps on a fucking 1/2 vocal section? also could you stop going full turbo shiirn autism with your "kiai emphasis" bullshit since it makes zero fucking sense making it a golden unspoken rule of mapping that is forbidden to be broke. if there are jumps that fit and might be bigger than some kiai jumps, why cant i just use them and why would i have to follow some nonsense principal?

Raikozen wrote:

there is a change from normal to drum hitsounding in 01:09:420 (3,4,5) - and a hitclap on 01:09:956 (5) -

Raikozen wrote:

do i need to put a fucking 130 decibel megaphone right in front of your ear so you can hear that a vocal note starts over here?

Raikozen wrote:

in most maps, if there's a burst at the end of the slider, it's most likely 1/4 and it has TWO notes (remember capsed numbers, they are important!)
if there are THREE ( :O ) notes in a 1/4 song that isnt a gimmicky map with doubles all the way, it means it's most likely 1/3!

Raikozen wrote:

if it plays bad for you, that just means you're just not good enough at the game, and that's it

Naxess wrote:

This is also a really bad attitude. Just because a modder can't play the map, does not mean they can't bring valid arguments.

MrSergio wrote:

I wonder when you guys will learn that subjective opinions are perfectly fine in the ranking process...
As long as the person states his reasons and provides examples of what he's saying, it's perfectly fine, so stop with your memery already.

If others don't like your work they have all the rights to tell you so (in a polite way, obviously)
Spoiler: it has always been like this

MrSergio wrote:

I wonder when you guys will learn that subjective opinions are perfectly fine in the ranking process...
As long as the person states his reasons and provides examples of what he's saying, it's perfectly fine, so stop with your memery already.

If others don't like your work they have all the rights to tell you so (in a polite way, obviously)
Spoiler: it has always been like this

Shiirn wrote:

Your maps are not you.

Mun wrote:

Shiirn wrote:

Your maps are not you.

pkhg wrote:

avoid bad words

Loctav wrote:

@-himei if you dont know how the modding process work, please get lost or discuss that somewhere else. Just because it is not breaking the RC doesnt mean that no debate about the matter is permitted or that stuff still can't be wrong. And apparantly someone nailed something on your forehead, because this is like the 9023490390349509305935902123843298th time that someone told you this and you are still too dense to get it. Can you just quit it altogether and stop teaching people about an ecosystem that you clearly never understood yourself? On a second note, you can discuss your displease about how the modding ecosystem works in its own thread, not in map threads that are only reserved for discussions about the map self. If you fail to abide that, we will have to make sure that you simply never post in this threads again - ever.

Shiirn wrote:

Attacks and dissenting opinions towards a map are not necessarily personal attacks on the mapper. This is something everyone should try to remember, as it's very easy to feel as if your opinions are being disregarded when presented with conflicting ones.

Your maps are not you. They are not an extension of you, no matter what you may feel on the matter. They are something that are created, and once ranked have officially "grown up" - they're no longer under your control. Ranking a map is by definition ceasing all development and putting out a final, unchangeable copy. You'd best be ready for that.

Maps do not have feelings. Mappers do. People get pissed off when they feel their opinion is being disregarded, or when they feel people aren't giving them the respect "they deserve" by implying, or in many cases, outright saying, that they feel the mapper did something incorrectly.

The main conflicts people are bringing up with this map proper are based on what constitutes "proper representation of the song". The biggest nail of discord there is that the song itself is extremely messed up and hard to follow. As such, different levels of experience in music, listening, or even possibly physical gear (headphones, speakers, etc) can be causing massive changes in what each person hears in this track.

This is why I went to so much effort to point out how horrible this track was - not the map, not the mappers, the song itself. A song that has this much conflict over what even constitutes the basic rhythms and melodies really shouldn't have a difficulty over 6.5*. And that's being generous.

-himei wrote:

With the time the map becomes as an embodiment of its mapper's soul's expression. When somebody continuously tries to change it/nuke it, or just inhibit the ranking of it, the whole discussion becomes personal.
You cant deny anything from ^
It is truth for any map and any mapper that got some experience in mapping and the mapping itself for him (you, me, everyone) becomes an
expression of his feelings
that is personal. It is true for eveyone here who stopped mapping to the "beat" after realizing what mapping is in its advanced form.

Shiirn wrote:

Modders who hate your maps are not clawing through the fabric of reality to tear at your soul. Your creation is intangible, it cannot be damaged or destroyed unless you let it be.

Just because it's important to you doesn't mean that you need to be a neurotic sociopath to protect it from things that cannot hurt it.

The same applies here. Personal attacks are pointless; attacking the map has purpose as the moment you push your map for ranking you are by your own choice putting it under review by opinions that are not your own. Being able to be objective and logical about your own emotions is literally what "maturity" is about.


If you truly wanted to have a map be a personal bastion of your feelings and soul, you would not try to rank it. They're mutually exclusive.

-himei wrote:

theres no distinct borderline of "what is good/bad", aside from RC/Code of conduct, which are vague at some points.

-himei wrote:

you never know what is "optional enough" to skip or "bad enough" to change,, because, eventually, the more people comes, the more stuff you must respond to, the higher chance that you wont handle everything alone.

MrSergio wrote:

If you can't "express" your vision in an easy-to-understand manner then you failed.
It's like... "are people not understanding what I'm saying or is it me who can't explain things?" kind of thing.

Loctav wrote:

@-himei .

WORSTPOLACKEU wrote:

Stuff

1. 00:13:572 (1,2) - i think going along the way 00:11:161 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,6) - suggested which is going for following vocals would actually make that more predictable, you currently have 00:13:974 (2) - which is off-beat from that so using two 1/2 sliders would make more sense with your overall structure you had so far, also applies to 00:14:643 (1,2) - 00:15:715 (1,2) - doing this will enable you to have 00:16:786 (1,2) - stand out specifically and highlight that the vocals there are doing something different
   
   
2. 00:18:125 (1,2) - this is minor but the overlap is so much that it could make the pattern harder to read depending on the skin you're using, could try having the sliderhead of 2 more noticably outside of 1
   
   
3. 00:21:340 (2,3,1,2,3,4) - 00:24:286 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - idk throughtout this section you do seemingly arbitrarily lengths of 1/2 circles before using sliders again, like i get what layer of the music you're following with 00:20:000 (1,2,3,4,5) - , but for some of these it just seems you're mixing multiple layers of the song until it's unclear what rhythm you're actually trying to highlight, i'd advise to follow the melody primarily and only switch to the drum layer when it does something extravagant like it does in 00:26:965 (1,2,1,2) -
   
   
4. 00:23:215 (1,2) - 00:25:358 (1,2) - seem out of place considering that you don't do 1/1 slider in the section otherwise, they stand out by being different where the song doesn't really do anything different
   
   
5. 00:35:536 (3,4) - 00:31:518 (3) - shouldn't these be circles according to how you handled focuses on drums previously? using sliders for these seems kind-of wasted potential to me
   
   
6. 00:36:072 - to 00:40:358 - maps everything as one long stream with highlights on white ticks (aka the reversing sliders) which is kind-of disregarding that the song provides highs on 00:36:340 - 00:36:741 - 00:37:143 - 00:37:545 - 00:38:884 - , some of these are just left in the middle of sliders that start on white ticks for the sake of easy gameplay (assumption from my side) i think you could do more with this if you included a clearer focus on what you're primarily following through rhythm here
   
   
7. 00:59:911 (3) - according to your previous structure this one would probably make more sense as two circles as that would at least allow you to have 01:00:045 - as something that the player has to click.
   
   
8. 01:10:358 - starting here i am unsure what you're mapping the circle-only patterns to, you seem to fall back to mixing multiple layers of the song arbitrarily (at least i can't hear a clear thing that does constant 1/2 at the same intensity in these parts, because not even the vocal layer does that, so whatever you were going for with that it's not very clear) so having something that is in some way predictably following the song through rhythm would probably be better here. I think this is the main thing people take issue with, you mix multiple layers in order to have more circles in seemingly not that obvious ways so people don't really get what you're doing throughout most sections that involve lots of circles with almost the same spacing which leads people to believe you aren't trying to represent the song in any clear shape or fashion.
   
   
9. most of the chorus feels just like any of the previous sections with some slightly higher SV or is even easier, i don't know if this is what you were going for because the way i see it you generally intended the chorus to be more intense.
   
   
10. 01:47:858 (1,2,1,2) - isn't vocal intensity increasing while spacing is decreasing throughout this?
    
    
11. 02:10:893 (1,2,3) - this would be such a cool place for a break similarly to how you did 00:52:411 (3,4) -
    
    
12. 01:44:643 - a lot of your patterns are very circular, most obvious in the circle only patterns which just keep going on in the same direction for like 5 seconds sometimes. you could make a lot of the other patterns stand out more on their own if you e.g. change directions whenever the vocalist starts the phrase over in 01:45:447 - 01:46:250 - 01:47:054 - , right now everything with the exception of 01:46:920 (3,1,2) - which go back-forth, the entire pattern is clockwise and kind-of misses a chance to highlight that the vocalist is starting over the same phrase a lot by making all of these feel similar.

1. From the song, 02:10:893 (3) - sounds like it could be a 1/1 slider and 02:12:500 (1) - could've been 2 1/2 sliders.

1. 03:52:143 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - This should really be following the vocals, there's no emphasis on the OOO~ part. I think you should revisit your Everlasting Memories Diff, there are some useful stuff like what you did to emphasis the OOO~.

1. 00:10:358 (1,2,3,4) - Why is it that you have 3 circles and a 1/1 slider here and decide to increase spacing between notes where there is no build up of intensity?
2. 00:11:831 (1) - remove nc
3. 00:11:965 (2) - nc
4. 00:12:634 (1) - remove nc
5. 00:12:768 (2) - nc
6. 00:24:286 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - I think you should decrease the spacing between these notes since music became less intense.
7. 00:30:715 (1) - change this sliders position, its better to give it more emphasis by not having it flow with 00:29:643 (1,2,3,4) -
8. There's a strong sound here 00:37:545 - and here 00:37:947 - , you could map them as kicksliders?
9. 00:44:643 (1,2) - blanket?
10. I don't understand why you have huge jumps here 01:11:429 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - but not as big here where it makes sense to have large jumps 01:17:858 (1,2,3,4,1,2,1,2) -
11. 01:43:974 (2) - x268 y23
12. 02:51:072 (1,2,3) - try something else, it isn't very creative and music doesn't really support it.
13. 02:59:643 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - a stream? why?
14. 03:05:000 (1) - could be 1/2 and a circle, works better imo
15. 03:25:625 (1) - why not end slider on blue tick?
16. 03:35:000 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - lower distance between notes, jumps are quite large, music hasn't change from the last two kiai
17. 03:43:572 (1,3) - that's a pretty ugly slider tbh and blanket
18. 03:52:143 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,1) - look at suggestion I gave kroytz about this section.