Naitoshi wrote: 6z3c2v

HOW DO YOU PRONOUNCE YOUR NAME?! YOHANES?!

Kisses wrote: 45e28

1g1z4l

muffled voice

1. 00:00:156 (1,2,3,4) - Why does 00:00:156 (1,2) - have a different stack to 00:01:441 (3,4) ? what are you going for? the start of the song is incredibly quiet so i use a slow buildup of motion and rhythm throughout the intro. this is just the most direct example of that, using a perfect stack to start the map with absolutely zero motion. if you look at 00:13:870 (1,2,3,4) - there are similar differences in spacing, but since this part of the map has achieved more motion, there's more motion here
2. 00:03:584 (1) - Underlaps like these break down the structure of your map, can sometimes throw players, most of the time don't look appealing (this isn't an exception) and just looks really random, though that ties along with the breaks down the structure part. you use the word "structure" here, i can only assume you mean visual structure, but all i aim for in mapping is gameplay stuffs that expresses the song. if that results in something looking "ugly", then so be it. but if you look carefully you'll see lots of consistency in gameplay concepts. here for example, i want the player to move back from the slidertail into the head to emphasize the strong downbeat here. but since there's also little motion overall in this intro, the result is this placement
3. 00:06:798 (5,1) - This is the part where it would be a good idea to use small spacing instead of a stack. It would make sense with the other patterns such as 00:08:513 (3,4) - and when you have things like these done consistently the whole map becomes easier to read and less frustrating to the player stack here is for the super weak quiet high pitched piano key that isnt remotely similar to 00:08:513 (3,4) - . but it is the same as 00:20:513 (7,1) - , which i do keep consistent
4. 00:13:870 (1) - And increase in spacing would have been nice. I really don't understand the thought behind the placement when you put it 2/3 thirds in between 00:13:012 (4) - and 00:12:155 (3) . Again stuff like this makes the map look random and unpolished
5. 00:17:084 - If you're gonna map this then you should at least map 00:16:870 i see where you're coming from here, but that would be too much note density overall and those other sounds are more like echoes for me anyway so personally dont want to map them
6. 00:15:584 (4,5,6,1) - I just don't see how this pattern would be readable. I mean I guess some people are good enough to sight read but most people would have to really focus since the spacing and structure don't reflect the rhythm at all i assure you this is super easy to sightread as i have gotten lots of testplays and nobody breaks here. it's not even remotely difficult lol..
7. 00:17:941 (2,3) - Now I can't tell if this is a mis-stack or deliberate small spacing. If it's the small spacing it would be bad because it's different to all the other 1/4 spacings such as 00:08:513 (3,4) . If it's a stack then similar point to what I said before it is deliberate, lol, it's a custom stack since the map uses sl2, and i prefer for the stack to follow along with the sliderbody motion
8. 00:33:155 (4,5) - recommend using same spacing as 00:08:513 (3,4) or vice versa. This goes for a lot of other rhythms like this prefer the hard stop here to lead into the next vocal line, i dont agree with using the exact same circle overlap style just for visuals, it detracts from the gameplay
9. 01:09:370 (2,3,4,5) - These are all part of the same piano riff so why is (2) not grouped up with (3,4,5) ? same for 01:12:798 (2,3,4,5) - your idea also works but i prefer to separate here to denote the volume of the keys better, and to also represent vocals to an extent
10. 01:31:655 (4,5) - and then you use different spacing for the circle slider pattern. The reason you've done this doesn't seem to be clear within the song either i can only assume your complaint is about visuals again which is not an issue for me as expressed before. this placement is to make clear iit starts at a 3/4 gap and then to emphasize the right angle that's formed here
11. 01:34:441 (5,6,7,8,1) - Yeah this is just straight up unreadable. can you you choose to express this part of the song with this specific pattern? this is also really easy to read lol.. and it is also already really different from any other pattern, and also i love it :3
12. 01:36:584 (2) - ^ on top of those high space jumps you jump again to this note which puts a lot of strain of you and this a minor beat. i dont understand, this is a 1/2 gap at 90bpm its not a jump
13. 01:46:013 (4,5,1) - the flow is really un-intuitive. It's bad. Going from 5 to 1 is really uncomfortable and really rigid, it also doesn't seem to fit in the the concept of the rest of the map flow is a government conspiracy, im specifically looking for a harsh motion here to emphasize vocals
14. 01:51:584 (1) - ^ the existence of this arrangement as well should make it clear this in consistent and intentional, no?
15. 01:49:441 (1,2,3) - A lot of people are going to misread this as 1/4 beats, you have to do something to make this pattern more distinguishable imho this is a valid concern and one that multiple other modders have brought up, but imo it should be fine for reading. the concept of "any rhythm in a stack is readable" is becoming more and more popular especially in the chinese mapping scene. i've been considering stacking these onto the next slider as well to make it more obvious it's a 1/3 quad, but.. i like the jump motion too much ^^'
16. 01:56:655 (4) - Unused timing point it actually is used to turn kiai off
17. 01:56:298 (1,2,3) - The 1/6 pattern you have before was stacked and this isn't. This in a way kind of shows the important of consistency in patterns because you have spaced 1/4 patterns, spaced 1/6 patterns. stacked 1/4 patterns, stacked 1/6 patterns, patterns with different spacings and it's all thrown in together where the music doesn't change so it becomes a bit of a cluster fuck and really difficult to read. I also feel that spaced streams fit the song these drum beats are clearly way louder than the earlier 1/6 pattern so the spacing changes as well, and the spaced stream nature is to express the powerful vocals and give the downbeat power as well
18. 02:10:013 (1,2,3) - Ok last thing about spacing of patterns. I just want to use this as an example to put the nail in the coffin. When you play 02:07:655 (3,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2) - you're going to assume 02:10:013 (1,2,3) are 1/4 beats too because of the structural spacing and instinctively play them that way too. Because the drums are somewhat quiet the player isn't really going to pick up on that anyone with basic rhythm sense and understanding of song composition will expect 1/3 here because there was 1/3 at the same points throughout the kiai. it's also clearly distinct by the object arrangement and nc job
19. 02:15:370 (4) - fancy sliders are nice in all but.... you just threw this in randomly, none of the other sounds similar to this have sliders this extravagant except it's a direct contrast to the play motion of 01:48:584 (6) - , which had a loud symbol crash, and this part doesnt even though it's the same vocal line
20. 03:46:013 (3) - The song doesn't do anything fancy or change drastically at all so why the SV change? Really, really unexpected to play and doesn't seem to fit the song like all the other .5x sv changes i use, this is stressing the heavily stressed high pitched vocal and is consistent with the rest of this section
21. 03:49:870 (1) -^ also you could at least NC 03:50:727 (3) - to signal to the playing you're speeding things up again 1.0x is the basic sv of this section which you can see with many surrounding objects, and NC's dont make sv changes any more readable and would just clutter up the nc job
22. 04:00:155 (1) - Ok so first off, from the player's perspective, this is boring to play. Playing a single slider with such a low SV for an extended amount of time can be boring in itself but even more so when there are a lot of other stuff ing in the background, which leads on into the second point. What is this mapping exactly? There are a lot of stuff going on in the background, there are vocals and the piano so why are you mapping to something non existent (if it does exist I can't hear it clearly and I'm sure a player would be scratching their head as to what it is as well. see p/5815260 for the explanation of this slider (after i make a quick edit to it orz)
23. 04:23:727 (2) - This is nice idea to capture the build up but ending this so close to 04:24:156 (1) on the timeline makes it very, very easy to slider break at a regular bpm this is just a 1/6 slider which isnt hard at all to move to another object from
24. 04:26:084 (2) - i wanted to point out this individually, this spacing is really huge and it is, to me, a really minor beat lol you're not wrong, but a 1/1 gap here fits the drums best so i used a big spacing to keep the buildup feeling powerful, this isn't hard to play or anything so it's good for me
25. 05:18:584 (1) - In my experience of mapping spinners are more fun to play as an outro, something to consider i dont really like spinners for fade-out effects. they're a valid technique, just not for me
26. 04:51:584 - This is the only place in the map where you have a finish hitsound on a ive beat (slider end). Recommend to make this beat clickable. actually i really like ending sections with slidertails like this, and there are other places in the map that have strong sounds on slidertails followed by a gap in objects
27. 04:49:013 (2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) - This whole pattern has high spacings and youre dragging your cursor all across the screen. It doesn't feel natural and fluid especially compared to a lot of your other patterns i actually don't entirely disagree here. this isn't hard to play or anything but lowering spacing would probably fit better
    Spacing
    Spacing emphasis seems to be non existent or just inconsistent. More emphatic notes such as 00:22:441 (4) receive no spacing emphasis whilst minor notes such as 00:25:655 (3) and 00:53:727 (5) and 01:54:798 (4) get really high *relative" spacing hm i think the main problem is that you consider any 1/2 gap in this map to be a "jump", despite this being 70bpm and that being a really long gap in notes, so nothing really plays like jumps at all

[]A lot of stuff I said can be repeated for similar objects. I brought up consistency a lot at first because I do think it's important in songs such as these. Sorry if I came across as rude in my mod btw. Well, GL! you didn't come off as rude at all, dw~

Naitoshi wrote: 6z3c2v

I disagree

Zero__wind wrote: 1y6q53

recheck as requested

General
clear

muffled voice
00:44:298 (5,1) - this jump feels a bit too big in this part as there's nothing important on the head of 00:44:727 (1) - , better try to make the spacing smaller i agree, fixed
01:39:370 (9) - maybe move it a bit more to the right so that the whole pattern 01:38:727 (7,8,9,1) - express the crescendo better messed with the pattern a bit, hope it's better now
02:07:655 (3,1) - exchange NC to to avoid misunderstanding? the current setting makes 02:07:227 (2,3) - feel like 1/4 should be fine imo since the 02:07:013 (1,3) - stacking makes seeing approach circles easy, i don't really like nc'ing for reading stuff but instead to show off instrumental patterns like the drum patterns in 02:07:870 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2) -
03:25:441 (3) - NC for slowdown? just like 04:47:727 (1) - actually i want to remove the 04:47:727 (6) - nc lol.. i don't think sv change nc's are ever needed (or even that helpful), and for these slowdowns the sliders are always right next to the next downbeat slider so it's easy to see the approach circle, so it's easy to tell there's an sv change. 04:47:727 (6) - had a new combo for a special effect, but now it kinda seems out of place, so i think i'm gonna remove nc there ^^'
03:56:727 (1) - need normal finish addition added
05:12:798 - add a circle here? I think it makes the rhythm more coherent and easier to grab, but you need to reduce spacing to 05:13:013 (5) - if you add circle i think this shows off the drums in the best way, and none of my testplays have messed this up, the large spacing makes the 3/8 rhythm pretty clear, really want to keep this ;w;

not much

Nao Tomori wrote: 1f93x

#3

Zero__wind wrote: 1y6q53

#65535

Kisses wrote: 45e28

Nao Tomori wrote: 1f93x

#3

Zero__wind wrote: 1y6q53

#65535

Can you like, not troll with these

Gabe wrote: 4i6g6f

Thank you for looking at the timing, Ongaku! :p

1. 00:00:172 (1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,1) - i dont understand why there is such a great difference in rhythms here when the song is practically the exact same. What are you following? this doesnt really make sense.
2. 00:09:171 - these random gaps in rhythm dont really make sense. you may say its to highlight the 5th note but its highly questionable and just makes it feel awkward.
3. 00:10:457 (1,2,3,4) - why is there so much random variance in this song's rhythm? consistency would be better here
4. 00:19:029 (5) - why is this a slider that randomly ends on blue tick unlike any other slider in this section.
5. 00:32:529 (3) - why is this a 1/4 slider instead of 1/2 considering how you held vocals before.
6. 00:35:100 (2) - same here, you're not really following the piano so awkwardly trying to randomly capture these parts doesnt really make sense
7. Overall from 00:27:600 (1) - to 00:41:314 (1) - there is a strong lack of clarity as to what you're following.
8. 00:46:243 (3) - why is this 1/4 repeat slider compared to 00:32:529 (2) -
9. 00:53:100 (4) - why is this 1/4 when you could better follow the vocals with 1/2

1. 00:00:172 (1,2,3,4,5,1) - why are these overlapping so poorly, what purpose is there in this? It just looks bad and can be easily avoided with no difference in gameplay.
2. 00:13:886 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - can you explain how these haphazard and ugly usage of inconsistent spacing helps improve your map.
3. 00:17:957 (2,3) - what purpose does not having these stacked conventionally help with your map?
4. 00:23:314 (6,1) - can you explain to me why awkwardly overlapping these sliders improves your map design over having parallel construction.
5. 00:51:600 (1) - why is this awkwardly overlapping itself?

1. I can continue but overall I believe this map is fundamentally flawed. Specifically deg your mapset to literally be ugly with awkward overlaps and blatantly inconsistent patterning and design is questionable and not something fit for the ranked section of osu! You are going to claim that these overlaps are critical to the design and play style of your map, however I have a hard time believe that poorly constructed and inconsistent amounts of overlaps and slightly inconsistent distance between notes visually adds any difference in the play of your map.
   
2. Usage of inconsistent rhythms and awkward 1/3rd rhythms that are nearly impossible to sight read due to your spacing being everywhere, the player has no reason to expect that 01:49:441 (1,2,3) - is 1/3rd when its patterning is literally designed to show the opposite. 01:56:298 (1,2,3,1) - difficult to read as you have 01:56:941 (2,3) - immediately after which is the same spacing as 01:58:655 (7,8) - and 01:56:584 (3,1) - .
   
3. There doesn't seem to be reason for what is a slider and what isn't. During the kiai you don't really follow anything in particular, and objects that are sliders in one section change to circles in the next. 01:58:870 (8) - vs 01:48:584 (6) - for example. The map seems to be everywhere and doesn't have any real structure behind it.
   
4. 01:56:298 (1,2,3,1,2) - also why are you blasting 2 kiai fountains

1. Try to utilize more rhythms during sections of identical rhythms. This is very obvious during the beginning which has a very consistent 1/4 piano beat. You can do things like showcase specific highlights of this section through spacing and changes in flow or other things, rather than changing your rhythm to have awkward gaps to highlight that a powerful note is coming
2. Try to have more consistency in your aesthetics. The lack of aesthetic consistency and all around is not good, it's akin to feminist philosophy that ugly is beautiful, which simply isn't true. Way's you can improve your mapping include trying to give reasoning and more polished design to the amount of spacing between objects and usage of overlaps should be frowned upon UNLESS they're executed cleanly and with reason. Some examples of how they can be clean involve full object overlaps of slider ends, or overlapping a specific amount by being consistent with the amount that the object is overlapped.
3. Avoid using slider designs one time in a map. In order to promote consistency, a good habit is to limit yourselves to the same sliders and sliders designs for certain sounds in the song. Having arbitrarily different sliders in your map randomly is a poor decision that can be looked at as lack of mapping skill or laziness.
4. Try to make your 1/3rd rhythms more iconic and clearly displayed in the map. Perhaps lowering the spacing would allow for the objects to more closely resemble that of a stream rather than give off the appearance of 1/4 rhythm circles.
5. Overall the distance snap of your objects is very strange and could use some more consistency. Try to have sounds of similar intensity have similar spacing, 01:51:155 (4,5,1) - patterns like these don't really make sense as the vocals are equally powerful on all notes, so there really is no reason for 1 to be so underemphasized.
6. Not that you need to religiously follow one instrument, but your map should try to observe a hierarchy of focus and be consistent with what it values as an important. This means that, since the vocals seem to be your focus, slider ends shouldn't land on vocals, since they're weak beats that the player won't fully be able to appreciate on a slider end.

Nao Tomori wrote: 1f93x

I disagree with the visual style. Vetoed! Have fun!

Xexxar wrote: 5a2638

Nao Tomori wrote: 1f93x

I disagree with the visual style. Vetoed! Have fun!

hi this maps style isnt consistent with my own so therefore its bad! gl!

soulfear wrote: 54a5a

No,thank you

Naitoshi wrote: 6z3c2v

tl;dr:

soulfear wrote: 54a5a

No,thank you

UndeadCapulet wrote: 1t2uc

loved is lame

Okorin wrote: rm2n

hmm

i said all of this in pm already but w/e

i think in the very beginning until 00:27:600 - a few accents set through circles seem a bit unfitting (as in trying to interpret the song in a way that isn't really straightforward)
00:04:457 (2,3,4,5) -
00:17:957 (2,3,4,5) -
00:20:529 (7) -
00:25:243 (2,3) -
are the most obvious places where the complexity created by using circles on 1/4 or even just the general rhythm choice create something way more complex than what the song provides in of where it's highs are focused and in relation to the rhythm you used previously
messed around with most of these, though i want to keep the high pitched beats that you pointed out as circles, i think they're really important. overall though the intro rhythms should be more logical than before

only thing i find pretty cluttered looking is 00:36:171 (5,6) - because you never did or really do this kind of thing again after a slider changed the 1/4 slider to 1/2
01:56:298 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - poses a rather unplasant reading spike which isn't really kept intuitive through spacing or hitobject usage in general, https://puu.sh/uxvt9/659fa89626.png might just work (less preferably https://puu.sh/uxvvj/bae9c942f7.png) removing 01:56:941 (2) - after all this time, as much as i like the play it provides, in the end it makes for more consistent rhythming and easier 1/3 learning

i like reverse emphasis done okayish (02:30:584 (1) - ending in a stronger sound but followed by a longer than usual break to make it stand out)
the more i listen to them the harder of a time i have grasping if the 1/6 are actually there or not but that might be cuz it's like 4 am or something

04:00:183 (1) - is lame (having it explained previously won't make it any less lame to me, it p much ignores any distinct piano features like the notes on downbeats like 04:03:611 - 04:13:897 - 04:20:754 - or whichever you wanna pick) ;-; i love how this slider expresses this section, i dont ever wanna change it.. even if it means this map can never be ranked, i will fight for it

04:23:754 (1) - doesn't really follow anything imo the more interesting sounds start at 04:23:968 - , so starting that thing there instead of mapping a hold slider on sounds you didn't previously follow would make more sense to me im fairly sure the crescendo-type sound starts at 04:23:754 -

last thing i didn't really like is the way you partially visually obstruct reverse arrows on sliders with either circles or sliders, depending on the skin you use to play the map these are either clearly visible or just barely at all haha, fair enough concern i suppose, but i think people worry about repeat arrow covering more than they should. all the arrows are visible on default skin, which is all rc judges, and except for maybe 04:51:170 (10) - the arrows are mostly visible or given plenty of time to be noticed while the player holds the sliderbody. i think it should be fine

Zero__wind wrote: 1y6q53

recheck no kd

some minor stuff

rpeview point unsnapped, reset to 00:00:064 - instead preview point doesn't need to be snapped, prefer mine to avoid as much song select fade-in as possible
02:29:298 (1) - remove NC for consistency? it currently seems too frequent comparing its former and latter phrases done for both
04:46:455 (1) - ^

ok I think I generally checked this map for too many times thank you so much for all your help zero ;;
call me back

Gabe wrote: 4i6g6f

last icon was a bubble pop :thinking:

UndeadCapulet wrote: 1t2uc

@Xexxar oko says if you don't come back to discuss then your veto won't hold up
I hope the new intro rhythms are better for you

1. 03:56:727 - Is the break here intentional? It felt kinda weird for me when playing because it takes away all the tension here even though this seems like a very tense spot to me, and iirc the following slider is intended to keep up the tension too instead of a long break, so yeah, imo getting rid of that short break would be more fitting, and would also make sense with 04:51:598 - not being a break, but whatever you want, just saying
2. 05:18:598 (1) - Since this slider is starting on a red tick and all the sliderticks are thus on red ticks too, I find it somewhat weird that it ends on a white tick.. imo it kinda conflicts with the slidertick's rhythm, bc after holding that slider for seven seconds and only hearing sliderticks I 'forgot' that the slider started offbeat, and just 'felt' the sliderticks as onbeat, so the tail felt offbeat.. I hope that makes sense lol, I'd suggest ending the slider at 05:25:455 - bc then it would be eight beats long which feels nice imo, but whatever fits your sliderhape I guess

Sophia wrote: 3x3i3d

04:00:183 (1) - lol what

Some parts of the map are okay, but others (specially this one) feel disgusting to play, and look lazy as heck.
This slider didn't make me feel like I was into the song, it felt like not playing a map and listening to some good vocals that could have been mapped but weren't.
"Lazy" is the only word I can use to describe this slider.

Monstrata wrote: 5o4w3u

A lot of progress was made between bubble-pop and qualification. From what I gathered, you were asked for your opinion and to recheck the map multiple times, but failed to do so for whatever reason. What you veto'ed on may well have been addressed and resolved, but either way, you didn't contribute any further to the discussion after veto'ing despite the discussion and changes that were made after your post, so your veto became invalidated. The decision was made by a member of a QAT .

Xexxar wrote: 5a2638

No one informed me that there was progress being made on the map and yes, I still have issues with this map. I was under the impression I have a right to veto a map for what I believe to be fundamental flaws but I guess not? I supplied my reasons and sure, the mapper defended their points but I still heavily disagree with the overall design on this map, and nothing minor could be changed to fix the overarching flaws within this map. I will be ing Loctav because this is clearly a breach of the BNG Rules.

Monstrata wrote: 5o4w3u

The decision was made by a member of a QAT .

Xexxar wrote: 5a2638

Monstrata wrote: 5o4w3u

The decision was made by a member of a QAT .

ah yes a qat, the voice of god

Xexxar wrote: 5a2638

[Overall]

1. I can continue but overall I believe this map is fundamentally flawed. Specifically deg your mapset to literally be ugly with awkward overlaps and blatantly inconsistent patterning and design is questionable and not something fit for the ranked section of osu! You are going to claim that these overlaps are critical to the design and play style of your map, however I have a hard time believe that poorly constructed and inconsistent amounts of overlaps and slightly inconsistent distance between notes visually adds any difference in the play of your map.
   
2. Usage of inconsistent rhythms and awkward 1/3rd rhythms that are nearly impossible to sight read due to your spacing being everywhere, the player has no reason to expect that 01:49:441 (1,2,3) - is 1/3rd when its patterning is literally designed to show the opposite. 01:56:298 (1,2,3,1) - difficult to read as you have 01:56:941 (2,3) - immediately after which is the same spacing as 01:58:655 (7,8) - and 01:56:584 (3,1) - .
   
3. There doesn't seem to be reason for what is a slider and what isn't. During the kiai you don't really follow anything in particular, and objects that are sliders in one section change to circles in the next. 01:58:870 (8) - vs 01:48:584 (6) - for example. The map seems to be everywhere and doesn't have any real structure behind it.
   
4. 01:56:298 (1,2,3,1,2) - also why are you blasting 2 kiai fountains

hi-mei wrote: 4k160

Dude you said EXACTLY the opposite to me 6 months ago when same drama appeared in my map.

Bonsai wrote: 5l2nj

I'm saying that a map can make sense in more ways than just "this single object represents this single beat".

Bonsai wrote: 5l2nj

-About that long slider: I originally thought it would just be lazy too but I read through UC's dozen of repeated explanations in previous mod-responses and asked further in irc. I realized that he wanted to express that section in a way that wouldn't have worked any other way, because breaks or regular rhythm just don't have the same effect as such a slider. This way, it actually differs from other sections that have similar vocal rhythms, and I find that justified since this section ins indeed very different to the others, it has a lot of tension and that tension is better built with that slider than with 'regular' mapping, or a break here (and instead mapping out the other break). I don't think anyone who cares enough to make a whole map of whatever lenght would just throw in some random slider bc they are lazy and don't care about how the map turns out to be. Assuming that someone doesn't care about their map like that is quite disrespectful imo.

Xexxar wrote: 5a2638

stuff
"there is no logical structure to beat placement at the beginning of the song. we have basically the same rhythm every measure but you effectively randomly change your rhythms with no structure or purpose....( truncated )"

"I can continue but overall I believe this map is fundamentally flawed. Specifically deg your mapset to literally be ugly with awkward overlaps and blatantly inconsistent patterning and design is questionable....( truncated )"
I think the design is pretty acceptable for ranking, the song constantly shifts intensity and keeps doing different things, so the mapper decided to have somewhat variable visuals/rhythms based around that aspect of the song, making everything clean and structured would simply simplify the song, and is just a really meta-ish stupid decision.

"Usage of inconsistent rhythms and awkward 1/3rd rhythms that are nearly impossible to sight read due to your spacing being everywhere, the player has no reason to expect that 01:49:441 (1,2,3) - is 1/3rd when its patterning is literally designed to show the opposite. 01:56:298 (1,2,3,1) - difficult to read as you have 01:56:941 (2,3) - immediately after which is the same spacing as 01:58:655 (7,8) - and 01:56:584 (3,1) - ."
01:49:441 (1,2,3) - 01:56:298 (1,2,3,1) - those are indeed visually very counterintuitive from each other, however, those are rhythmically consistent and the mapper wants to challenge the player to depend less on the visuals and actively memorize the rhythms of the song, which is a really exotic concept I like cause it actually makes osu! a fucking rhythm game, your veto is basically "I can't read this pls chang"

"why are you blasting 2 kiai fountains "

Notice how those are spaced streams 01:56:298 (1,2,3,1) - and the song's vocals rises. So the first Kiai is for extra emphasize for that, the other Kiai is rhythmically consistent, check 01:49:870 -, Also it's not really good to say "why" when you try to veto something it makes it sound that you don't understand it rather than disagreeing with something.


"There doesn't seem to be reason for what is a slider and what isn't. During the kiai, you don't really follow anything in particular, and objects that are sliders in one section change to circles in the next. 01:58:870 (8) - vs 01:48:584 (6) - for example. The map seems to be everywhere and doesn't have any real structure behind it."
in a song like this rhythms can get really variable and constantly keep changing, the mapper simply decided to went for the vocals for the last part, the guitar/harp'ish chord and the vocals constantly changes intensity, so choosing one over the other is fine imo, and that's not even the same rhythmical phase lol.


"04:00:183 (1) - I didn't even mention this last time but, this isn't mapping to the song... it's just lazy mapping and is not acceptable."
the slow slider is just for the player to enjoy the vibe of the song, as people say people play this map mostly for the song :^) @zare
mapping it less dense or putting a break or anything would just make it less special cause the rest of the map is already interesting. so boring becomes the new interesting.

Naotoshi wrote: 2v95j

Xexxar trying to reapply his veto is probably the most logical thing happening on this thread. The intro rhythms have been explained over and over, forcing this map into generic clean boring ass patterning like the amazing full symmetry pachiru maps we all have seen 30 million times is retarded and purely subjective, the slider itself has been explained repeatedly and extensively and is not lazy mapping. Again, if Xexxar's veto should have held up then that is fine, but according to a member of the QAT it was invalidated. So please consider this before acting like idiots on the thread and trying to force your perspective of the song onto this map.

Natsu wrote: 1f6re

About the veto, as far I understand the mapper would need new BNs if there are not agreement between the parts.

bor wrote: 5s722g

Natsu wrote: 1f6re

About the veto, as far I understand the mapper would need new BNs if there are not agreement between the parts.

You think about this, and realize that there was no disagreement with the response. the mapper tries to this person to reach an agreement for an entire month. what do you do in this case? give up on the map?

Natsu wrote: 1f6re

Find new BNs to veto xexxar's veto, that's what we are supposed to do in this situations, anyways I back up xexxar's mod (not the visual part, but the rhythm pats).

UndeadCapulet wrote: 1t2uc

Thanks for you concerns, Xexxar! And thanks for dividing everything up into main issues, it was well-worded and easy to read :>

Since your post ended up being about a lot of general things, it'd be better for me to discuss things more generally as well instead of going line by line. Hope that's okay, feel free to let me know if there was a bulletpoint you especially wanted a response to.

Also, since it's mostly general, some things may just be able to be summarized as "uh i disagree". I only have general responses to your general replies, so they might not feel satisfying (also, wording words is hard orz). Let me know if I need to elaborate further on anything.

If I'm reading things right, there are 4 main issues you have with the map: unappealing visuals, rhythm inconsistencies, 1/3 readability, and the intro. With that said:

Inconsistency

Consistency is definitely something important in mapping. Songs are naturally repetitive, so concepts in a map should also repeat to express the song properly, and make the map feel cohesive and defined. Concerns like this are the ones I value the most in modding, so thank you for focusing on this more than visuals (though it would've been great if you hadn't focused on visuals at all ww).

I put a great deal of care into keeping rhythms and spacing consistent throughout the map, repeating for same-sounding sections of the song. You use the example of 01:58:870 (8) - vs 01:48:584 (6) - being a rhythm inconsistency, but I don't really see why, when 01:48:584 (6) - is ending a vocal verse and is matched by 04:33:170 (6) - , while 01:58:870 (8) - is in the middle of a vocal verse and has no relation. There is consistency, just not whatever you were looking for.

My response to Kisses' mod goes through nearly every note in the map. It discusses rhythm consistency, spacing consistency, and general concepts. If you have more specific examples of things I messed up on, I would love to hear them, since I don't really see your issue here. But check my reply to Kisses' reply first, since it talks about nearly everything.

Also, before Nao bubbled the map we spent like 4 hours going through pretty much every note, and Nao was happy with the justifications.

Intro

This is definitely the most questionable part of the map imo, I have no problems with somebody popping over this.

The start of the song is a constant spam of piano at 1/2 beat (well, 1/4 at double bpm but you know what I mean). But mapping this wouldn't feel satisfying in the big picture of the map, because this section of thee song is really, really quiet and weak feeling. So instead I mapped this section with the idea to:

1. introduce gameplay concepts that will appear throughout the map
2. start with super minimal rhythming and slowly build in note density
3. emphasize high pitched beats like 00:06:171 (4,5) - , 00:09:600 (5) - , etc.

I can try to walk through some of the intro to explain my thought process.

Spacing is generally really low because I want as little motion as possible for this super quiet intro to contrast the bigger motions in the kiai sections. So you talk about ugly overlaps in the intro, that's why they're there.

00:00:172 (1) - to 00:13:029 (4) - is half a verse, and then it repeats starting at 00:13:886 (1) - with the introduction of a new instrument. The rhythms from the second half of the verse mirror the first half, with the exception of the added instruments. 00:00:172 (1,2,3,4) - matches 00:13:886 (1,2,3,4) - , 00:06:171 (4,5,1) - matches 00:19:886 (6,7,1) - , and so on. The second half is slightly more dense than the first half for previously explained reasons, but the previously emphasized beats are still the overall focus, unless something new shows up.

00:00:172 (1,2) - Is a really quiet start to a song, so I perfect stack. No cursor motion reflects the quiet start, as well as the 1/1 rhythm gap. Also, now the player knows this map has perfectly stacked objects.

00:02:743 (5,1) - The first introduction to a common theme in the map: Downbeats frequently reverse play direction. It's overlapped because the overall spacing is so slow, but I still need the heavy direction change here, so this is the resulting placement.

00:05:529 (3) - The first 1/2 beat shows up here, so to keep note density low I avoid mapping 00:04:029 - . It also helps to emphasize 00:06:171 (4) - when we get back to white tick clicking.

00:06:814 (5,1) - These are both really weak high tick piano beats, so they are stacked together to reduce motion, and the spacing from 00:06:171 (4) - is smaller. Lower spacing for weak stressed high pitches is a very common theme of the map.

00:08:529 (3,4) - First instance of multiple 1/2 clicks, note density is slowly increasing more and more.

00:09:600 (5) - Slidershape reduces motion here to emphasize the high pitch for similar reasons as above.

00:10:457 (1,2,3,4) - End of the first half of the verse, things get simplified to build into the next half, where the song begins to repeat itself. Another common theme of the map.

00:16:243 (5,6) - The first 1/2 jump, emphasizing the new instrumental. The player is now aware of 1/2 jumps. Spacing is slowly building in intensity as well. Also, this introduces sliders that feed back into the prior circle, another common theme.

00:16:457 (6,1) - As a quick example, this motion matches 00:02:743 (5,1) - , but larger. The whole intro works with this concept.

---

And so on. Mapping every piano beat would be very unfitting in the big picture imo, so I did this kind of thing instead. If you have suggestions for better rhythming, feel free to suggest them, I totally understand these rhythmings being questionable.

Hope I understood you properly, and I hope I made some form of sense in my ramblings.

Sorry to see you didn't enjoy my map. But I definitely don't think it's "fundamentally flawed", we just disagree about what should be focused on in mapping. If you can put the visual differences aside, I'd be happy to discuss further.

---

Also, to anyone following this thread, I'm considering changing the rhythms at 04:31:027 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - or 02:13:870 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - to be more consistent with each other. I originally wanted the second kiai to blend the two halves of the first kiai together (since it's half as long), but the better experience may just be to fully match everything. Would love to hear other opinions!

Shiirn wrote: 4dp13

If you think mapping the introduction will bore the player, you've failed as a mapper. Make it interesting, it's not hard.

If you (UndeadCapulet) need to constantly explain every note to someone, you have failed as a mapper, because if your map's themes or concepts need to be explained constantly, they're clearly not coherent and don't belong in the ranked section.

If your concept has people questioning what it even is to begin with, you've failed. There's a big difference between people "Not understanding" and "Not liking". It's quite possible to understand a map's concept and hate it. But when you can't understand the concept to begin with, (if there even is one other than "I think the intro rhythm is boring and would rather have my own entirely different one and just make it kind of consistent") there's no second step. It can't be liked or hated if it's not understood.

If your map needs a spoken or written tutorial, you've fucked up. Just change it and save everyone the headache.
saying a mapper has failed if people can't understand their purpose is a misguided approach. Sure I can use the wording you've used and find any newer mapper say "understand this" to a lot of widely accepted maps and get a response of "no". Though this wouldn't invalidate the mapper in any way. If anything its easier to argue if the modder doesn't understand the map they failed as a modder, though this can be logically falsified. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean other people cannot. This is why explaining what a map is doing happens ever. As for them being explained constantly, don't you think people cannot read prior posts? Don't you think people who dislike the map or don't understand its concepts are much more likely to post asking about them than people posting on this map "hey I like this and fully understand your reasoning behind the map. this is really cool" because hey you can rate this map without even entering the thread itself. Asking someone to give up on their idea means you failed as a modder. Modders are supposed to take the mappers ideas and make them better when all you want to do is throw them away.


And for what it's worth "Nobody bothered ing Xexxar at all but he didn't show up for a month so clearly he doesn't care" is a hilariously asshole way of going about bying a veto. I expected better from you guys.