god knows why but i dont have the option to edit my posts - overlaps arent really a big problem in the set from what i saw, just thought it was worth mentioning + bringing up this one example
this is advice that holds essentially for all mapping ever, so feel free to look through the rest of the difficulty (and the rest of the difficulties!) also, to get good emphasis on the most important instruments
yeah what i was trying to say is that i like the 1/4s on vocals but i dont like the 1/4s on drums as much because the vocals are much more important/"foregrounded" (whereas the drums are pretty constant throughout the song and i feel they're not special enough for the extra density of a 1/4). advocating for less mapped sounds instead of more
(so for example I would prefer 00:31:888 (4,5,6) *without* 5)
I'd rather have circles hitting the filler on (2,3) than a slider, because sliders are landing on vocals during the kiai.
(Sliders do also hit some drum&guitar stuff; circles do hit a couple of vocals, but I'd like to keep that to a minimum)
I really don't like mixing stack rhythms, but the difficulty and AR are high enough for it to be perfectly fine I think. Players at this level can most likely read all the gaps in here instinctively!
Closing to try avoid emphasising too many things - I tend to get overfocused on trying to catch all the sounds and I don't really want to do that with this map. I think the drums are most prominent here
I am emphasising the cymbal 00:59:681 (1,1) - here through spacing emphasis, 00:58:692 (5) - here through rotational emphasis
Definitely a good call cus it might not be as obvious to other people
Addressing specifics to round off my response:
00:06:274 (1,2,3) - is mapped to the same emphasis pattern as previous downbeats (drum on the tail, downbeat+guitar on the head), but with the extra guitar added in there as a bonus
00:08:087 (10,11,12,13,1) - emphasises the (1) through rhythmic pressure, and there aren't any drum sounds missed in between (10) and (1), and I feel like the 10 is suitably emphasised by spacing
You are 100% right that I traded off the way I emphasised the drums in order to map some guitar here - I did that to foreshadow/setup/etc the change to the guitar spam, and since I feel it's still properly emphasised I'm leaning towards being ok with it
Mostly focusing on the general:
The section generally focuses on the drums and synth chords, which you 100% spotted, and which are generally in sync.
When notable guitar points come up, I try to emphasise them without compromising the emphasis of the drums/synth
The only place I can spot that I mess up drum emphasis is 00:08:912 (1,2,3,1,2) - , but I consider that fine since the guitar rises to the foreground for me, which we seem to be in agreement of
Apart from that, there was almost 100% consistency with the drum emphasis, the only exception being that one slider you pointed out to ctrl+g, where the drum is on the end, I'll consider that one
00:04:296 (3) - mirrors 00:03:637 (1) - both in visuals and emphasis which I think is nice and feels intuitive enough for me
Might change might keep, but it's minor
Not particularly enthusiastic about the ctrl+g but I do see where you're coming from with it hmm
I'll think about it definitely cus it hits the vocals nicely, another good spot
The filler is a nope from me for emphasis reasons
First slider is emphasising the guitar sound, the vocals before are taken care of by 00:40:559 (1,2) - and 00:43:197 (1,2) -
The vocal on the sliderend is an unfortunate victim of my evil mapping :(
I'll consider it but the vocals you point out are much more subdued compared to the drums + vocals I do map on, and I like the emphasis on the out-of-ordinary drums
I see what you mean hmm
I was focusing the buildup on the snare until 00:29:351 (1,2) - emphasises the vocals but I definitely think vocals do something more significant here
I guess less abstractly it helps to make 00:27:043 (8) - feel like it belongs to 00:27:043 (8,9,1) - rather than to 00:24:736 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) -
I might change it but it's small and I'm not too bothered
Just situational emphasis, 00:27:043 (8,9) - forms the upbeat to something that does need to be emphasised (00:27:373 (1) - )
Bit like how sometimes mappers put a filler triplet before a big downbeat even if there's not really a 1/4 rhythm there, but with spacing
You hear 123,123,12 I hear 1234,12,12 so whilst I can totally see what you're getting at, I think it's a difference of perception and so I'm happy to leave it
Angle shift is to emphasise the change in rotational direction here, I'm totally biased cus I expect it whenever playing though, so I'll see if I can get a second opinion on if it's alright or not to settle the debate! c:
NC is for emphasis and to make the pattern pop out cus it's a bit hard compared to the other stuff, wanna give the player plenty of time to read it
Really good point LOL I heard the warbly sound from the guitar and thought that was more or less a consistent 1/4, but going back and listening more carefully there is literally no sound on that (2)
I'm fine with a little filler, it adds a little oomph + helps build up to the climax c:
Closing as part of https://osu.ppy.sh/beatmapsets/1793428/discussion/3675613/general#/3165892
(for extra clarity they are already stacked like this just with that offset I talked about)
Absolutely no clue what to do about this one, maybe spacing them out like that will be enough but I'm not sure and rhythms are definitely mixed a bit visually throughout the map
Leaving open too until I try some stuff out!
Oh these are all intentional afaik, I might change 1/4 spacing so that it isn't the same as the stack spacing, but I don't like perfect stacks (partly because I play a lot of HD and they're not particularly nice with HD)
I'll leave open in case I change my mind or the sentiment is echoed by someone else
Also there is already a precedent for this complaint, which I would have reopened if I had spotted it earlier: https://osu.ppy.sh/beatmapsets/1357624/discussion/3125070/timeline#/2493081
My point is that no other stacks look like this (apart from 02:04:126 (2,3) - ), which makes it look out of place visually.
Because it only deviates extremely rarely, it seems more like a mistake than intentional, regardless of whether or not it is broken.
2¢: I think there is a lot of personal opinion playing into this discussion.
I wouldn't nominate this map, because it doesn't fit my ideas of quality, and I agree that certain aspects of the map could be polished more. However, I don't think this is the right way to be having that argument.
Two nominators (per mode) decided this mapset is good enough, and that is how the system works. That is what is considered to be the minimum standard of quality to enter the ranked section.
If the consensus is that the system failed, then that's not a problem with EE spreads, or short maps, or even with this map, it is a problem with the way quality is determined, and there is no reason why this mapset should be treated specially.
The fact there are no higher difficulties shouldn't be relevant, and bringing that fact into the argument implies that low quality mapping is ok if it is done on a large spread.
Vetoing this map will not set a precedent for the increased standard of quality in the ranked section, because the system was working as it should have.
If there are disqualifiable problems with the mapset, then the mapset should be disqualified and those problems addressed. It really shouldn't require special treatment.
I'd love for there to be a way to highlight high quality maps, whether that is by doing this, or doing that, or doing whatever crazy things people would come up with.
However, this isn't really the place to be having that discussion or to be coming up with solutions.
Should play like a 1/2 jump due to slider timing & position leniency so it should be ok (ds is 3.88 which is significantly smaller than previous jumps)
Feel free to reopen if you disagre obv