Hi I am finally here with a response. This response includes the mappers' opinions, and I am posting them in their place to avoid any potential issues from language barriers. I will try to word this response as professionally as possible but I apologize in advance if anything ends up sounding a bit too personal.

SR is probably what most people are interested in this thread so I will be writing about this at the bottom of this post.

------------------------------

Let's talk about the LN use in general first. From what I see there is a fundamental lack of understanding of how LNs are used in 7K LN charts in the original post. The impression that "LNs do not do anything and just seem to be there for the sake of it" is something not many players will have from actually plaything the map. None of the LNs in the examples are rocket science and can be explained with a few words:

02:28:694 (148694|0,148694|4,148694|1,206381|0,206451|4) - These are just melody LNs.
03:28:554 (208554|0,208624|4,208834|6) - These specific LNs have little to do with each other. The LN ends in this section form clearly identifiable lines.
03:27:853 (207853|6) - Another smoothed LN release. It could be longer I guess so it looks straighter but it absolutely shouldn't be rice.
03:02:689 (182689|6,182829|5,182899|3) - These are melody LNs, again.
02:36:965 (156965|0,156965|1) 02:38:086 (158086|5,158086|6) - These are clearly placed to kicks, and having them LNs accentuates the wobbliness of the synth.
03:02:619 (182619|3,182689|6,182759|2,182829|5,182899|3,182969|1,183040|4,207853|6) - see above
03:08:367 (188367|1,188367|0,188507|2,188507|4,188647|3,188647|1,188647|6,188787|2,188787|4,188927|0,188927|6,188927|3,189068|1,189068|4,189208|6,189208|2,189208|0,189348|1,189348|4,189488|2,189488|3,189488|6) - These LNs are very trivial in difficulty, and it is very common practice to have LNs like these to drums.
03:17:198 (197198|0,197222|1,197245|2,197268|3,197292|4,197315|5,197339|6) - This adds a noticeable emphasis on the rising synths.
02:59:395 - Not only is it not common to have LNs like these, they actually do significantly add difficulty to the map. Having this rice will result in a very different map.
03:21:544 - ^

And as a result any sort of distinction, emphasis, or contrast with your patterns is completely thrown away.
This is a very bold claim. These LNs are absolutely noticeable and I doubt many players will think otherwise. I really don't have much to say if you still think otherwise after playing the map.

What are we even playing to?
See above explanation on each timestamp.

Why is half of this LN when it's not even the melody?
Why should LNs be only placed to melody? There is no objective basis to this and LNs absolutely should be, and have been, placed to any arbitrary sound the mapper wants. Whether a certain pattern is "befitting" of a sound is highly dependent on the context of the map, and the background of the player.

------------------------------

Moving on to consistency. I should preface this section with that consistency in details like these are seldomly the most important aspects of 7K mapping. Most forms of emphasis and expression in maps at this level and above rely on other far more important concepts, such as anchoring and finger independence.

02:30:937 (150937|6,150954|5) - There is a clearly audible synth grace here that is not present in 02:29:815. The faster synth at 02:35:563 is a lot more pronounced and slower than the others, and is in a different section.
02:21:825 (141825|6,141825|3,141825|0,141895|4,141895|1,141965|2,141965|5,142035|0,142035|3) - Adding a burst here will mean it'll be harder to transition into the quad anchors right after. I do think that this can be tackled by shifting some notes around without changing density but the lack of 1/8 drum representation is a very small sacrifice for visible synth emphasis at 02:22:105.
02:36:404 (156404|1,156544|0) - obviously the drums.
02:42:432 (162432|5,162450|0) - fair
03:10:294 (190294|1) - guitar legato? Same reason why there is a LN at 03:09:804.
03:19:301 - Ignoring synths allows for a stronger kick emphasis
03:27:993 (207993|0,207993|2,207993|1) 03:26:871 (206871|2,206871|0,206871|3) - ok fair. This error happened after applying taba2's mod and will be fixed.

A lot of these "inconsistencies" are extremely minor as well, and it's very unlikely that any player will notice changes resulting from these - testplayer responses on whether they keep track of every individual LN release has been very mixed.

------------------------------

The difference in intensity perceived at the two kiais is extremely subjective and there is no way to objectively quantify which section is more "intense" than the other. I could argue that the second kiai starts off sharper, and the pitch of melodies are dissimilar enough to warrant a variation. The rate at which difficulty increases isn't even that drastic anyway. Progression in difficulty, while steep, is well within what would be acceptable for the target audience.

I do have my qualms about the difficulty curve though. More on that later.

------------------------------

02:28:694 (148694|0,148694|4,148694|1) 02:29:815 (149815|1,149815|4,149815|0) - Why should they not. Both are released at 1/8 and having to release right before 02:30:096 this puts a light emphasis on the next synth sequence.
02:40:610 (160610|1,160785|1) - this is an extremely insignificant reverse shield. If you have trouble playing this you're not going to be able to play much else in the map.
03:01:077 - snaps here are not as clearly audible as you claim it to be. The kicks are fast enough to be impossible to hear each individual kick at full speed while playing, and considering that the map is very dumpy in nature anyway, it hardly matters whether the 1/12 snap is correct or not. Even if it were 1/8 it would still make sense to overmap it to adequately emphasize the kicks here.

Now on to the unsnaps:
Every unsnap is 1/24, except for two LN ends which are 1/14. The 1/14s are supposed to be 1/24 as well but the difference between the two snaps are literally 1ms and it made no sense to keep resnapping them every update.

Additionally, the snaps used in dumps are definitely quite freeform, but there is little need for them to be 100% consistent as they are mostly placed to the "wobbliness" of the synth, which is inherently impossible to map with complete accuracy. However, they are very intuitively placed, and should be understandable for most players that will be playing this. If you believe that any section underrepresents the wobbliness, please do point it out.

------------------------------

I genuinely need to point out that it looks like this chart wasn't carefully looked through as BNs, if at all
It is also worth mentioning that there were so many serious technical errors on qualification (unsnapped notes, missing metadata, etc.) that it's hard to believe this was not somehow rushed to qualification.

You should know that I have been following the map's progress for at least 2 months. I would appreciate it if people did not make baseless accusations such as this. I will not say much more on this as it will be irrelevant to the discussion and will only be a point of potential conflict.

------------------------------

About responses to taba2:
I believe both NoName and Mono are looking far too deep into this, and it is unfair to accuse mango of being dismissive when he tried his best to respond despite his inadequate English proficiency. It's also worth noting that taba2's tone was far more casual in Korean elsewhere regarding the map. If you have any issues with the explanations on taba2's posts you are more than welcome to reopen them.

------------------------------

Now moving on to what most people seem to be interested in: SR.
Discussions on this topic have definitely been discouraged so far as they tend to be extremely unproductive and irrelevant to the spirit of modding. I hope discussion on this matter can be conducted in a civil manner, and I will try my best to do so myself.

I would (as quite a few other players have mentioned) estimate this at no more than ~8th Dan or so.

I should also clarify that everyone involved in the set are fully aware that the map is very overrated in terms of SR. While I would argue that the map isn't quite as easy as dan 8, we are in agreement that the map's SR is far higher than most other maps of similar difficulty.

However, it's hard to agree that SR should be considered when determining the rankability of a map. I will not be going over any claims that this map has been mapped this way solely for the SR, or that this is getting pushed to rank for pp as it is completely baseless and frankly inappropriate for discussion, but I will try to go over other points one by one.

Mappers have cracked the code.
The misconception that mappers have only recently "cracked the code" and overlapping LN releases have only started to be used because of SR completely dismisses years of 7K LN charting and the history built up so far. People have been mapping LN dumps like this, many of which are extremely overrated in SR, for a very long time, going back much further than even osu!mania itself. For years people have complained about the lack of such content in the ranked section and putting SR back on the table again will push us back to the old days of content drought.

I can speak for many when I say PP milestones don't feel as earned as they used to.
This is a sentiment I can agree with, but it's something that people have always been feeling, long before LN maps like these were normalized on the ranked section. PP and SR has always gotten progressively higher, except during a few pp reworks. I find it unfair to put the blame solely on the recent meta.

While I appreciate the content these provide, I have mixed feelings leaning mostly negative to see charts like this have the most influence on a person's rank.

I believe that this is probably what people are most dissatisfied with. There definitely is an undeniable discrepancy between what how hard maps of this SR should be and how hard it actually is. The question is, how important of a factor is it for the intended audience?

Pretty much anyone that is good enough to play this map will know that PP and rank are horrible metrics for assessing player skill, and a lot of us, at least on the surface, claim to not care about it. I personally do not believe that this is an obstacle big enough to gatekeep maps of adequate quality from the ranked section, especially if it means that there will be less content to enjoy in an already content barren game.

I believe that I am not alone with this sentiment either. Both the mappers, who are well within the target audience, share this with me, and other players responded that they find SR to be less important when asked by the mappers.

Some screenshots (linked instead of embedded as they take forever to load):

from turtlewing:
img link

from UTGY:
img link

from DellyK:
pastebin

from ideu-:
img link

from uni3924:
img link

from Vincus:
img link

You could argue that these responses are biased, but this lines up with the general reception I've gotten from the target audience from nominating high SR 7K maps, which have not been very negative.

I find this to be especially less of a concern now than ever considering the unprecedented activity in pp development, in which one of the mappers actively participate in.

I do not agree that a flawed system beyond the control of the mapper should be an obstacle to a map's ranking process. Only the map's quality should matter, and I believe all of us here can agree that SR is not relevant to map quality.

------------------------------

On the map's difficulty curve:
This wasn't exactly mentioned in the veto but I will be mentioning it anyway. The current difficulty curve is a compromise between myself and the mappers, and I have been asking the mappers to smoothen out the difficulty curve for some time.

While I have rolled with the current diff curve until now as how steep of a progression does a map have to be before it gets unfair is a subjective matter, some discussion in the BN server has led me to think that buffing the first half of the map to smoothen out the difficulty curve will make the map more palatable to the intended audience, and perhaps alleviate the discrepancy between SR and perceived difficulty. Thus I would like to ask if you are willing to accept this as a possible solution to the problem.

------------------------------

My final questions for you are:
What do you actually propose that we do? There are a whole lot of complaints but very few practical solutions. It's unrealistic to wait for the SR system to magically fix itself, so do you propose that staggered release LNs just not be ranked? Would a rebalancing of the map's difficulty curve be a good enough compromise? Would waiting until the next rework be good enough for you? Do you have any practical ideas for fixing pp calculation? It would be great to have a clearer idea on what you actually want.

------------------------------

I hope this was a sufficient response for you. There is little point in us fighting over this, and I hope that we can conclude this discussion without wasting too much of everyone's time. If there is anything in this post that you do not understand, please let me know before jumping to conclusions. While I won't be able to track this discussion 24/7 due to irl responsibilities, I will try my best to answer any concerns when I can.

no harm in adding the tag
just waiting for the mapper(s) to check before dq'ing

my concern was the opposite:

Due to the higher strain towards the end of the map, having too high of an HP will unfairly fail players even with high accuracy. o!m is not known for good HP clearing mechanics, especially for LNs, and it can be very easy to slip up and fail. I personally found such experiences far more frustrating, and not really worth the satisfaction from clearing them.

Open for opinions though.
Adjustments to HP/OD is a very quick change and if people don't think it's not frustrating to fail with high As, or if the current HP values are not high enough to fail very low mashed scores without unfairly failing a significant number of players, there should be no reason to keep it.

The issue arises from two conflicting metadata RC clauses:

Guideline:
If the same song exists in the Ranked or Loved sections already, the metadata should be followed unless it breaks other rules in the ranking criteria or the official sources state something completely different.

Standardisation:
If multiple metadata options are available, priority should be given to the option which is most easily recognisable and traceable back to the original song or source. Official romanisations and translations are preferred for romanised fields so long as they are easily found and commonly recognised.

One clause states that previously ranked or loved set's metadata should be prioritized, if it isn't completely different. The other states that official romanisations and translations should be preferrred, as long they are easily found and commonly recognized. Neither clauses explicitly override another and the conditions they require are equally ambiguous.

Whether an unofficial romanization of an artist's name counts as completely different from that of the official one is definitely not as clear cut as some people make it out to be here. While the old names are not erroneous, it is not very similar to the official translation either - the only similarity is the number 25.

On the other hand, the previously used romanization can arguably be the most easily recognisable as it has been used multiple times in this game. It also isn't erroneous either so it can be argued that it isn't completely different from the official unicode metadata. Either way, RC does not explicitly state which is more important so there is much room for interpretation.

TL;DR there isn't too much point in arguing about whether either option is in violation of RC. There is an inconsistency within the ranking criteria that makes it impossible to unambiguously determine which metadata option should have precedence.

quick update to move an inherited timing point in the intro

🤯

If it makes it easier to tidy up layering, yea, but it's more the shields that matter more as they're really noticeable.
I think it'll be cool to just have the shields placed to the consecutive 1/2 drums (maybe just at the first one) and 1/6 dump at the vocals everywhere where it doesn't shield.

here's an example at 01:30:947 ~ 01:33:371.

oh damn you reduced anchoring in general as well
ig that works too

huge L

I think it's fine. The long LNs do look weird in isolation but the pattern as a whole look quite deliberate. Considering that the map is quite freeform I think aesthetic LNs like these are ok.