Garalulu wrote:

첵스

Maxus wrote:

hello niks moe

• [Insane]
  00:09:945 (9945|3) - better move to col 3 to avoid too many minijack at col 4

1. I do not think change this part is required
   
   00:13:581 (13581|2) - move to col 4 to avoid triple jack at col 3
2. ok
   
   00:14:642 (14642|1,14793|2) - move to col 3 and col 1 to also avoid triple jack here.
3. ok
   
   00:27:369 (27369|3) - should be at col 3 here, because you usually use double jack at 00:25:096 - , but at 00:27:369 - you use triple jack, which is inconsistent.
4. ok! change!
   
   00:29:793 - why the jack here is much more compared with 00:28:278 - ? i think you should make 00:30:400 (30400|0,30551|2) - at col 3 and col 2 instead.
5. ok
   
   00:32:672 (32672|0,32824|0,32975|0) - quite sure this one is not intended, cause you don't use this triple jack at 00:35:248 - , better make 00:32:975 (32975|0,33127|1) - at col 2 and col 1 instead.
6. 00:32:975 (32975|0) - move to the 3col
   
   00:36:460 (36460|1,36763|0) - make these col 1 and col 2 to avoid triple jack at 00:36:157 (36157|1,36309|1,36460|1) -
7. ok..
   
   00:39:187 - how (a)bout try https://puu.sh/zc7mi/fb58572c17.png , its better pattern here.
8. yeap change
   
   00:40:551 - I think having repeated pattern here is awkward, considering the sound is definitely isn't the same for each instances, how about try https://puu.sh/zc7qA/e82e32cb13.png instead
9. I like this repeating patterns, but I follow your opinion.
   
   00:48:884 - Should have another LN here, try https://puu.sh/zc7sN/a033639122.png
10. it's better good, ok!
    
    00:55:096 (55096|1,55096|2,55248|0) - try making [12] 2 for more variation
11. yeap
    
    00:57:218 (57218|2) - better move to col 1 so that the vocal is more emphasized.
12. ok, and 00:58:430 - here is same too change
    
    01:00:703 (60703|1) - move to col 1 so the pattern would be more neater here.
13. ok
    
    01:01:006 - i believe this is kinda overchorded when we compared with how you patterned at 01:13:430 - , at 01:13:430 - has much louder sound, but the density is less compared with 01:01:006 - , so i suggest to reduce the amount of chord you have, like https://puu.sh/zc7D9/186daf0546.png
14. I mapped it mainly the vocals and drum
    01:01:006 - (Ge)(3 note) 01:01:309 - (Te)(3 note) 01:01:460 - (E)(4 note) 01:01:763 - (Ko)(4 note) 01:02:218 - (O)(4 note)
    i'm not think believe this is kinda overchorded
    i think a little less overchorded
    
    01:07:218 - this one also doesn't fit to have repeated pattern, try https://puu.sh/zc7EN/393d79b3a4.png
15. Change
    
    01:18:581 - hmm, i need to say something bout this, the guitar snap is actually not 1/4, it has unstable snap which is dangerous to map, since the snap ruling is to be accurate with the sound, so i suggest you to just map with LN similar with fontes' Hard.
16. i am agree your mind. this guitar sound snap is not 1/4
    but i think that this note expressed the sound of the guitar sufficiently.
    I would like to keep it like this.
    
    [Normal]
    00:13:884 (13884|3,16309|0) - Actually, these 2 sound has really loud high pitch synth like 00:13:430 (13430|3,15854|2) - , i recommend you change both of them into 1/2 LN.
17. Your words are right too
    But i want to give it a 'cutting' feel to player and
    actually, the tone is also short on the guitar.
    
    00:20:854 - Pattern here kinda a bit awkward here, try https://puu.sh/zc87I/7ba8bbbf0d.jpg
18. ok
    
    00:31:612 (31612|0,31612|1) - better switch column between the LN and the note so the structure is better.
19. ok, also other pattern too same change
    
    00:39:945 (39945|2,40096|3) - make these 4-3 so the pattern is more balanced.
20. ok, change
    
    00:42:369 (42369|1,42521|0) - mini trill seems unnecessary here, move these to col 3 and col 2.
21. actually your right, i see. Thank you Xd
    
    00:52:369 (52369|0) - move to col 2 so its much more neater.
22. I would like to use 1col and 4col notes to express drum,
    so change 00:51:915 (51915|1,52066|0) - this 2col, 1col notes -> 1col, 2col note
    
    00:52:824 (52824|3,53127|0) - make these col 1 and col 3 so the pattern would be neater too.
23. I dont want long notes from 00: 52: 824 - and 00: 53: 581 (53581 | 2) to be on the same line.
    Change some pattern
    
    01:11:309 - kinda too heavy on left side, try https://puu.sh/zc8eU/b695f1a410.png
24. i do move right 1col 2col -> 2col 3col
    
    call me back~

Maxus wrote:

hello niks moe

[Fontes' Hard]
00:29:793 - kinda felt this is more heavy on left side, i will recommend pattern like http://puu.sh/zc7NL/93a4acdde9.png instead.
ok seems good.

00:37:218 - The minitrill at left kinda awkward being so sudden appear here, i will do https://puu.sh/zc7QQ/a0f51e6ceb.png instead here, its more neater imo.
the placement of this note is a gentle representation of guitar notes. these notes hav 1/2 snap, and i think these do not disturb the flow of play. so il keep this.

01:00:399 (60399|2) - move to col 2 here, the stack at 00:59:490 (59490|2,59793|2,60096|2,60399|2,60703|2) - is awkward here cause it seems for no purpose.
ok. at fisrt i intended to start LN (2notes with a single note) with one hand but il move 00:59:187 (59187|1,60399|2) - these notes to 3 and 2 col as ur mod.
actually it seems to be difficult to avoid a certain 1/1 jack in the structure cuz this part has only 3 repeat interval.


01:02:066 - well it seems inconsistent you use double LN here, cause at places like 01:03:278 - you only use single LN, better change one of the LN into ordinary note.
il make 2 col note to single.

01:04:793 (64793|1,64945|0) - make this col 1 and col 2, so the pattern doesn't becoming too same with 01:05:399 (65399|1,65551|2,65551|3,65551|0) -
ok wil fix it.

01:06:460 (66460|2,66612|3,66763|2,66915|3,67218|2,67369|3,67521|2,67672|3,67824|2) - well people might won't like the long OH trill here, try https://puu.sh/zc7Z1/36fb7e5026.png (it started from 01:06:006 - )
01:07:369 - this part 14/23 trills are i intended. even though the previous stream structure is trill i don wanna change this concept.
and i doesent look interfere with playing in this part. when we look at the editor, the structure looks like a continuous trill but the notes u linked is just 1/2 beats containing blank term, i feel it just simple stream flow when play.
i dont think that we 'must' balance both hands in any section, giving up a pattern we conceived unless the overall balance goes down.
instead of ur mod, il move 01:07:218 (67218|2) - this note to 2 col.

01:26:668 - well, I think its better for you to not map drum here and end it the same as Insane diff here, the drum snap is too unstable here, i'm not even sure if this is really the correct snap, unless you can confirm with someone, i'd say it's too risky to map it.
ok. il delete those.

Thank you for ur mod maxus
Surely you seem to be able to confirm what we have not seen before.

Maxus wrote:

thank you niks for the understanding
Seem fine now, will leave the rest to lulu.

Garalulu wrote:

Maxus off probation when

Surono wrote:

duhh..
does someone hv reportd this?

Asherz007 wrote:

Hi there,

Congrats on the qualification, but I believe that there is an issue present that needs to be dealt with before this map can progress any further.

After having a discussion with Protastic, we've decided that the hitsounds, or lack thereof, in this map is insufficient for rank. While there are keysounds that are not present in the song itself providing feedback to the player, this is minimal and only exists in certain parts of the chart (it is absent from 00:12:369 to 00:21:612 and 01:18:581 to the end for example), which essentially leaves some parts completely unhitsounded.

This would not be as big an issue if the hitnormal were louder, but as it stands, it is incredibly difficult to hear feedback from the hitnormal in louder sections of the song, even with the music at 20% and sound effects at 100%. Similarly, in the quieter sections, the music needs to be turned down to around 30% for the hitnormal to become remotely audible. This is a problem since every note needs to have audible feedback for the player.

A possible solution for this issue would be to additionally hitsound the map using more conventional hitsounds (such as a kick or snare), as well as increasing the volume of the hitnormal. The keysounds as they are are fine and can be kept.

Protastic101 wrote:

Alright, I suppose since it's a grey area, it's fine to leave the hitsounds as is. Still, the problem with the hitsounds being inaudible is still there with the hitnormal because increasing the volume of it in game doesn't really do anything when the sample itself is almost inaudible. Please raise the volume through audacity or some other software so that it can be heard. Currently, there is almost no feedback from the hitnormal still, but it has improved.

Protastic101 wrote:

Raised the volume of the sample and also adjusted green line volume settings in all diffs, should be better now. Here's the heart back

error_exe777 wrote:

i have to agree with myka.

this hitsounding is backwards, very much so. using justification like "and many people like it" isn't good enough to write off the lack of feedback. the ranking criteria is there for a reason, not to be written off by personal opinions of players. to be more specific, keysounding just for vocals gives no valid feedback to the player, and having literally the rest as some loud drum sound is completely disregarding any sort of acknowledge that the song exists and you aren't ignoring it. focusing on vocals is literally the opposite of what you want to be emphasising here. the vocals do not affect gameplay and the hitsounds should enforce that. also, skipping drum hitsounds because it feels "unnecessary"? seriously, the entire point of hitsounds is to provide feedback and you not adding these hitsounds is literally doing the opposite. there is no acknowledgement that they exist within the song and similarly to above, and what myka said, it doesnt bloody harm to add them.

you cannot back up a unconventional choice with personal opinions, specifically when it disregards both the music and the ranking criteria (to a degree).

just.. add some K-S hitsounds. it takes less to no effort and it completely eliminates any problems regarding feedback.


actually really surprised the QAT didnt question this further.

Wonki wrote:

태클걸꺼면 디퀄댈때 한번에해라 븅신드라

Maxus wrote:

Saying that feedback in this map is non-existent is really really awkward.. this map DOES have feedback in ALL notes, and the feedback issues are why the hitnormal are to be made really audible in the first place, it backs up the condition that every note needs to be audible enough in the RC, which this map actually already did. So technically from RC perspective, this map doesn't break any rule.

Having another loud and hard HS like snare or drum thing destroys how the keysound plays in the first place and It completely disrupt how the way that the keysound supposed to be the main thing here. Emphasizing vocal in this kind of song does making sense as this is an anime song where the vocal supposed to be the main star in the whole song (which obviously all anime song supposed to be? lmao..), and it's just like how the keysound works in this map.

Wanting to have more loud hitsound in the map with keysound is too subjective to be enforced to the mapper (just like if some people prefer to play map with specific pattern over other map, which is a matter of liking), and it kinda disregard how the mapper try to work around their planning for this map.

Kamikaze wrote:

If you clearly map to the drums in this map, why are you so opposed to making any kind of drum hitsounding and instead use a tiny hat sound along with piano for vocals?????????????

Wonki wrote:

태클걸꺼면 디퀄댈때 한번에해라 븅신드라

Kamikaze wrote:

although the hitsounds are a thing already discussed I'll just chip in to say that soft sampleset in general works really badly on any type of song that's fast, intense, or Not Piano Actually as the tiny hat sounds are more annoying than actually helping, normal sampleset with a standard hitnormal would already be way better, you could also raise the volume of the keysounds a bit to make them more important and more distinct since they're not really now

but that's not why I came here

SVs in this map are pointless and badly executed, you are just putting SVs so you have something interesting in your map and it has very bad effects on it.

Starting with the fact that you have only three spots in the map where you put any SVs and the first one is at 41 seconds into the map, it's incredibly inconsistent. Then to make it all consistent do the map really need SVs all over the place then? I don't really get this kind thinking. Usually SVs for most map are treated as additional properties instead of becoming the main thing of the map, and having couple places SVs in this map does make sense to me instead of compelling all the way to make SVs for other spots, which doesn't only felt forced when playing, but deviating from map's intention from the start.

The slowdown at 00:41:612 - albeit not that noticeable makes no sense as this section is not that much less intense than the previous one, more to that, you revert to 1,0x SV at 00:48:884 - where an EVEN LESS INTENSE PART HAPPENS, which is a nail in the coffin, the slowdown SV makes no sense and serves no purpose The instrument fading here, it has much less hard instrument compared with upbeat part before, and the vocal signify by singing in a much lower key to support the less intense instrument, i think it gives more than enough reason to do so.
For the part at 00:48:884 - , it's actually more intense for me because It gains additional instrument that's not exist in previous section (the guitar here much much more loud suddenly) , and this part serves as the bridge before going through the Reff or we usually call by kiai section, I do think it's reasonable enough tbh.

00:53:581 - This SV comes out super randomly, there is no other place in the entire map where you have an SV at this sound, then you have the execution which I can see that you might've tried to normalize the SV jump to 1x but you have the placement which is this:

This makes it so you don't have a normalized SV jump that's okay to play but there's a sudden slowdown that you cannot sightread because even if you expect SVs from the song (I didn't) you don't get any SVs in the first half and also you don't expect a sudden slowdown there so you automatically let go of LNs and miss. There are couple things that justify this part.
1. If there's already slowdown happening before, doesn't it strike player that this map will have SV in later part and then prepare for that?
2. This is the very first where the kiai or the reff of the song appear here, when the main entertainment appear, it's natural for me to have more exciting thing appear.
3. For number 1, Even if you want to say this need more than one time to be nailed, isn't most of SV map generally like that? I don't think the nature of SV in general can be immediately nailed by people who never play the map at all tbh. moreover i remember couple years ago when i was non-BN, i remember you stating https://puu.sh/ztOmu/4acdca2e63.png to public, so this somehow gives impression that you double-standard things so subjectively.
4. The leaderboard have many of the tester nailing the map to the point top rank player get SS or 998k+ effortlessly, usually we stating that something is silly/dumb when players constantly can't nail specific part properly, but leaderboard results contradicts that.

00:59:490 - This is also the only point in the song where you use this type of SVs and for some reason you don't use them on the first chord and use it on all other chords????? consistency?????????????????? if you say that the first chord is not suitable for putting this SV there because of whatever reason you will be correct but it will also apply to all of the SVs here
you are just putting SVs for vocal syllabes with no further context, this is not okay.At the same time, this part is the only part where the vocal syllables comes out consistently at 1/1 beat, no other part in the music does this, So having this particular SV doesn't make it not reasonable considering the fact we have here.

01:01:460 - why are you suddenly using quads for those drums? you only use quads otherwise when there are also LNs going alongside (which I also don't really agree with since there's no sound as strong as to support a quad imo) Niks did answer me before. http://puu.sh/ztOCP/960d54d6b2.png

and then I got struck by a really good question regarding the hitsound usage there was an argument for:

If you clearly map to the drums in this map, why are you so opposed to making any kind of drum hitsounding and instead use a tiny hat sound along with piano for vocals?????????????
Because mapper generally will map more than one instrument?
in the end of the day, there will be other kind of instrument to be mapped in the process, but it doesn't really mean it was in the mapper intention to highlight that instrument in general.

error_exe777 wrote:

I think a couple people are missing the point

Just because something is fun or just because you are able hit the notes accurately doesn’t justify anything. Essentially a baseless arguement

error_exe777 wrote:

we need to keep a level of quality in the ranked section and yknow, having non-sensical SVs “playing fine” doesn’t really give any argument for keeping them as they are

Maxus wrote:

Kay, Felt like i really need to reply cause this felt so wrong. will reply again after sleep.

error_exe777 wrote:

I think a couple people are missing the point

Just because something is fun or just because you are able hit the notes accurately doesn’t justify anything. Essentially a baseless arguement

I'm really confused right now, How does something that is fun and play well doesn't justify things? it is a really major component in determine whether the map actually pose the problem from the start or not. in fact if the map can satisfy the target audience the map's try to direct , I don't see the reason to over-analyze things too much if each element has its purpose and other stranger personally said its nice, as it is by itself hits a very grey area of perception.

uhm well, yes i can agree the playability of a map is a very important factor in the "quality" of a map but its not the only factor. just because a map plays well does not mean it adheres to the level needed to reach the ranking criteria. you could create a completely overmapped beatmap and even if its "fun" it doesnt means its rankable per se. i just think blaming everything on just whether it plays well is a really narrow-minded way of looking at the map because quality is not just decided by whether it plays well. if a map has problems, it cannot be disregarded just because it isnt objectively bad to play. if you were to make a vibro map or something that people found fun to play, that doesnt immediately mean its rankable. you have to take into consideration the other factors rather than just immediately assuming something is okay because it plays well. if a section of a map is inconsistent, or illogical, or disregarding the music or false emphasis whatever you want to label, it cannot be brushed to the side just because the target audience doesnt have a problem with it. this map has a problem, and just because it plays well doesnt mean we can just brush it to the side, you know?

error_exe777 wrote:

we need to keep a level of quality in the ranked section and yknow, having non-sensical SVs “playing fine” doesn’t really give any argument for keeping them as they are

quality is very very subjective and differ for each person, and you know it. it is not something you can "keep the level" on cause each interpretation can lead to really biased thing. i remembered back then that "overchorded" and "overmap" were an issues that been brought multiple time as "quality" issues, and now it actually got into the rank section and we see it doesn't get posed as an issue from either player / mapper anymore. It is just one of the strong proof on how we can't really bring quality as the reason very easily.



quality isnt subjective?? okay, the level of quality differs for each persons map but there is a level of quality you need to reach for a map to be rankable. even pishifat mentioned this in one of his earlier videos iirc. the problem at hand is that there are problems with the map that dent the "quality" of it and letting maps with these problems slip through is where the problem lies. we need to keep this level of quality because the ranked section needs to have that quality. its not subjective at all, anyone can look at a map and determine its quality (if you know what you're doing) and its not like the objective quality of a map differs from person to person. the only thing that differs is the ability to determine the quality of a map. quality is not a person to person basis, its something that is set in stone. and thats why we need to fix these problems because its quite obviously a hinder to the maps quality (in my eyes) and myself and kami have justified why it is. its not like the actual quality of the map is different between me and you for instance, its just down to how we view the map and what we determine as acceptable and not acceptable.