02:56:727 - crash cymbal d
forum
FELT - After rain 4ns5u
posted
Total Posts
215
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:
can't it since i'm not oko, but assuming this is true, then it should be bubble #2, i think.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
edit: lmao i didn't even notice that i got ninja'd by 40 seconds
bubil shmubil
just some quick things to be safe:
just some quick things to be safe:
- 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
- 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
I've had an irc-conversation with UC about that long slider and diffname and other stuff about a month ago which made me approve of them, the thing Oko mentioned about reverse-arrows' visibility isn't an issue to me at all bc playing on default worked out completely well, yadda yadda yadda I think this is ready!
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.
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.
I agreeSophia 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.
No one informed me that there was progress being made on the map (all of this happened in 3 days without once messaging me) 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.
EDIT: It appears I was ed once 16 days ago by Okorin via a @highlight on discord saying that my bubble pop would be void if I didn't respond to the mapper's response. (which note, I did discuss via ingame chat with him.) At the time I was very busy with academics and just said "I'll probably give up then" since I didn't want to waste my time debating with a mapper who would inevitable be unable to meet a common ground with me (the map is fundamentally flawed in my eyes and therefore I believe it shouldn't be ranked).
As far as I know this has not happened before, so this is something that will need to be addressed.
EDIT: It appears I was ed once 16 days ago by Okorin via a @highlight on discord saying that my bubble pop would be void if I didn't respond to the mapper's response. (which note, I did discuss via ingame chat with him.) At the time I was very busy with academics and just said "I'll probably give up then" since I didn't want to waste my time debating with a mapper who would inevitable be unable to meet a common ground with me (the map is fundamentally flawed in my eyes and therefore I believe it shouldn't be ranked).
As far as I know this has not happened before, so this is something that will need to be addressed.
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
its not the mappers responsibility to hold your veto.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.
edgy trash talk
plus if you are modding just to change someones aesthetics I think you clearly don't have a good handle on what makes a map good but hey that's just my opinion
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 .
.
Since I'll remake it clear:
Issues with this map:
[Rhythms]
As already mentioned in my previous mod, 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.
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.
[Aesthetics]
Just because you consistency use aesthetics that aren't consistent does not mean your map is acceptable. I've already stated that I do not find this acceptable and there is clearly no way for us to come to an agreement on this without a complete remap.
Again, my overarching reasons for why I believe this map to be flawed are still visible and have not been addressed:
Issues with this map:
[Rhythms]
As already mentioned in my previous mod, 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.
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.
[Aesthetics]
Just because you consistency use aesthetics that aren't consistent does not mean your map is acceptable. I've already stated that I do not find this acceptable and there is clearly no way for us to come to an agreement on this without a complete remap.
Again, my overarching reasons for why I believe this map to be flawed are still visible and have not been addressed:
I HEAVILY disagree with the design of this map, this is not something I believe to be suitable for ranking and and making it 100% clear that I am and still have been VETOing this map with my bubble pop.Xexxar wrote: 5a2638
[Overall]
- 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.
- 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) - .
- 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.
- 01:56:298 (1,2,3,1,2) - also why are you blasting 2 kiai fountains
I actually agree with Xexxar
Rhythm / visuals / flow can be improved here.
00:00:172 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,1,2,1,2,3,4,5,1) - what is this rhythm? Honestly its a 3 (THREE!!!!) star map
Its not supposed to be technical, or something.
The melody is consistent, and as i suppose, the thythm shud be the same? Honestly, I can clearly understand Xexxar's points, he is right in the fact that... uh at least rhythms can be reconsidered.
example of spacing issue:
01:04:457 (5,6,7,8) - the (8) equals (5) or (6) sound wise, the spacing between 7,8 shud be equal to 5,6 at least.
I mean... uh. Cmon, Im not even exaggerating, this map is still in questionable state.
Rhythm / visuals / flow can be improved here.
00:00:172 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,1,2,1,2,3,4,5,1) - what is this rhythm? Honestly its a 3 (THREE!!!!) star map
Its not supposed to be technical, or something.
The melody is consistent, and as i suppose, the thythm shud be the same? Honestly, I can clearly understand Xexxar's points, he is right in the fact that... uh at least rhythms can be reconsidered.
example of spacing issue:
01:04:457 (5,6,7,8) - the (8) equals (5) or (6) sound wise, the spacing between 7,8 shud be equal to 5,6 at least.
I mean... uh. Cmon, Im not even exaggerating, this map is still in questionable state.
This map is a mess. Rhythms and spacing are all over the place, hitobject usage and placement doesn't make sense, there's no cohesiveness.
I don't think it really matters, this map is about as forgetful as it gets and people will pretty much only play it for the song anyway, so I don't think it needs to be of particularly high quality, but in its current state this map is forgoing basic mapping standards and even official guidelines that can be found in the RC, and apparently there's people who care about that.
I don't really care about veto'ing rights or who ignored this map for a month or didn't but as it stands this map should probably not be pushed towards ranked quite yet.
I don't think it really matters, this map is about as forgetful as it gets and people will pretty much only play it for the song anyway, so I don't think it needs to be of particularly high quality, but in its current state this map is forgoing basic mapping standards and even official guidelines that can be found in the RC, and apparently there's people who care about that.
I don't really care about veto'ing rights or who ignored this map for a month or didn't but as it stands this map should probably not be pushed towards ranked quite yet.
Since I qualified I feel like I should state my opinion too here:
I am/was usually known for being quite stubborn when it comes to issues with consistency and the 'logic' of a map, yet I nominated it. That's because I tried to get rid of the narrow mindset that every single object must have a justification for its own existance and tried to look at the overall map. When I first had a glance at it in the editor I just went "what" but then testplayed it and it was an extremely enjoyable experience of this song. It's not like as soon as two single objects aren't consistent with each other that the map isn't following the song anymore, it still follows it on a bigger dimension than single objects. Hence I do not see much sense in arguing about "this was a slider here but is circles here!!!" - Not even minding what I just said, this is simply adding variety to a five-minute-map, yet is still variety that fits to the song and isn't just random.
Concerning some other issues that have been brought up in the last few posts here:
-Maps don't need to be sightreadable at all. Even so, I found the patterns that were brought up to be quite intuitive on my first play, but even if it wasn't I woudn't have minded, because I don't mind playing a map that I enjoy more than once. I don't think anyone creates their maps in order to be played once and then deleted. If you don't like the map enough to play it again, fine, but that's your issue alone.
-Please don't bring starrating into this. Just because it's 3* doesn't mean its target audience is 3*. Which it clearly isn't.
-"Specifically deg your mapset to literally be ugly with awkward overlaps and blatantly inconsistent patterning and design ..." - Honestly I never would've thought anything like that about this map. It's in a style that most aren't used to nowadays, but that's all there is to it. Whether you like a certain style or not is pmuch the most subjective thing in osu!mapping, but imo there is clearly a cohesive style to be recognized here throughout the whole map, a style which I find to work very well with the song. There are enough other maps that cater to your taste if you don't like this one, but please realize that this is extremely subjective.
-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.
I am/was usually known for being quite stubborn when it comes to issues with consistency and the 'logic' of a map, yet I nominated it. That's because I tried to get rid of the narrow mindset that every single object must have a justification for its own existance and tried to look at the overall map. When I first had a glance at it in the editor I just went "what" but then testplayed it and it was an extremely enjoyable experience of this song. It's not like as soon as two single objects aren't consistent with each other that the map isn't following the song anymore, it still follows it on a bigger dimension than single objects. Hence I do not see much sense in arguing about "this was a slider here but is circles here!!!" - Not even minding what I just said, this is simply adding variety to a five-minute-map, yet is still variety that fits to the song and isn't just random.
Concerning some other issues that have been brought up in the last few posts here:
-Maps don't need to be sightreadable at all. Even so, I found the patterns that were brought up to be quite intuitive on my first play, but even if it wasn't I woudn't have minded, because I don't mind playing a map that I enjoy more than once. I don't think anyone creates their maps in order to be played once and then deleted. If you don't like the map enough to play it again, fine, but that's your issue alone.
-Please don't bring starrating into this. Just because it's 3* doesn't mean its target audience is 3*. Which it clearly isn't.
-"Specifically deg your mapset to literally be ugly with awkward overlaps and blatantly inconsistent patterning and design ..." - Honestly I never would've thought anything like that about this map. It's in a style that most aren't used to nowadays, but that's all there is to it. Whether you like a certain style or not is pmuch the most subjective thing in osu!mapping, but imo there is clearly a cohesive style to be recognized here throughout the whole map, a style which I find to work very well with the song. There are enough other maps that cater to your taste if you don't like this one, but please realize that this is extremely subjective.
-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.
So to generalize your statement
playability > any rules that foricing map to be cohesive and have a logical background under things that exists.
I guess, we went thru this conversation so many times, and at the end its always a consensus between a map that looking good in-game and a map that looking good in editor.
For now, maybe its a good map for players, but it breaks so much fundamental stuff that got established over the past years.
So yea, Im still super concerned about this particular map, Its just not the way we do ranked maps nowadays.
playability > any rules that foricing map to be cohesive and have a logical background under things that exists.
I guess, we went thru this conversation so many times, and at the end its always a consensus between a map that looking good in-game and a map that looking good in editor.
For now, maybe its a good map for players, but it breaks so much fundamental stuff that got established over the past years.
So yea, Im still super concerned about this particular map, Its just not the way we do ranked maps nowadays.
Nope, to generalize my statement: "Its just not the way we do ranked maps nowadays" is not a reason for a map to be bad. That's how you stop the mapping-meta from ever changing/progressing. I'm the last person to say "it plays fine so idc whether it makes sense", I'm saying that a map can make sense in more ways than just "this single object represents this single beat". And I find it to look good in editor too, that's why I mentioned several times that that aspect is extremely subjective.
Don't try to intrepret my statement into something else for your sake, read and try to understand what I actually mean.
edit:
Don't try to intrepret my statement into something else for your sake, read and try to understand what I actually mean.
edit:
just for the record, I never said anything like that lolhi-mei wrote: 4k160
Dude you said EXACTLY the opposite to me 6 months ago when same drama appeared in my map.
Literally nobody in playerbase gonna notice how beautiful these irregularities are.Bonsai wrote: 5l2nj
I'm saying that a map can make sense in more ways than just "this single object represents this single beat".
Also on a more serious note, you do forget that people also learn mapping from ranked maps.
And I would not give this map to someone new to mapping.
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.
The difference between this and a break is that in this I'm holding a key.
Which doesn't correspond to any of the louder, more beautiful sounds that I'm listening to the song.
I've read his explanations as well and that's still my opinion. You can say the tension is better built with that slider, but utilizing the vocals would also show the tension (as the "intensity" of this section comes from the vocal strain of the vocalist), paired with something that is, say, progressively louder hitsound volume, and would make more sense musically as well as being better for playing instead of this "fake break".
Instead, we have a "break that isn't a break". That's my opinion at the core of it all - this slider feels like an excuse of a break. Break or this slider, same thing. It doesn't feel like I'm playing the song. It feels like I'm waiting until the next section of the song comes along because the mapper had no ideas on how to map it so he tossed a long slider because why not.
I'll uphold my thought that this is incredibly lazy just as you can keep the thought that this is good and fine and rank this regardless of my feelings, but since I think I'm the first one to call this slider lazy directly I felt like I owed a little explanation as to why I hate this slider so much.
PS: I understand these points are subjective and in the end the mapper should represent the song however he wants, I just personally disagree very heavily with it.
@xexxar
I think it's offensive that you're forcibly trying to apply a new veto because your old veto was already dealt with, you cannot veto the same map twice in a row only( and most of those points you raised all were already addressed if you just look at the mapper's explanation)
It's kinda irony how you say other BN's are breaking the rules since it's the other way around,
you are kinda breaking the BNG rules trying to renew your veto lol, why are you ing loctav???????
@
okay, good luck with your map it plays really well.
Just my 2 cents.
I think it's offensive that you're forcibly trying to apply a new veto because your old veto was already dealt with, you cannot veto the same map twice in a row only( and most of those points you raised all were already addressed if you just look at the mapper's explanation)
It's kinda irony how you say other BN's are breaking the rules since it's the other way around,
you are kinda breaking the BNG rules trying to renew your veto lol, why are you ing loctav???????
@
I don't think you understand the map on a high enough baseline to even judge it or there's a huge perspective difference.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.
okay, good luck with your map it plays really well.
Just my 2 cents.
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.
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.
well the rhythm isn't subjective, the visuals are yes. I hear the intro around 20 times and I still don't get what is the mapper trying to follow, it's super inconsistent, I'll try to mod this today later, because you really need to keep consistency with your own rhythms.
About the veto, as far I understand the mapper would need new BNs if there are not agreement between the parts.
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?
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).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).
if xexxars veto is valid in the first place :^) I mean qat already spoke about this. kind of silly to talk in circles just saying "yo dude do this" and then "qat said do this so i did" meme.
Hi friends. I get there is a discussion going on and that people aren't satisfied with the rhythms, but it would be nice if you guys replied to this post instead: UC has written very extensive reasoning and examples for the rhythms used in the introduction. Instead of saying you disagree with the rhythms, you could instead comment on UC's reasoning and agree/disagree with his reasoning there. That way the BN's and mappers involved can make more significant headway in discussing the controversial rhythms used in map. The post can be found on: p/5861117
Here's a quote for the rhythm parts if anyone's lazy:
Here's a quote for the rhythm parts if anyone's lazy:
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:
InconsistencyConsistency 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.
IntroThis 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:
I can try to walk through some of the intro to explain my thought process.
- introduce gameplay concepts that will appear throughout the map
- start with super minimal rhythming and slowly build in note density
- emphasize high pitched beats like 00:06:171 (4,5) - , 00:09:600 (5) - , etc.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
you also seem to misunderstand the issue with xexxar as people are claiming they tried to him for a month, only he is the one claiming nobody ed him. And if anything is asshole-ish its veto-ing a bubble on a map, abandoning it, and then trying to dq the map after a discussion about the parts that were in question already occured. Another asshole-ish thing to do would be posting on a thread without reading replies or understanding the situation and assuming something. So thanks so much for your time you really benefited this map thread.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.
We clearly need way more time to discuss this beatmap
also the entire process was kinda screwed up from both sides and at this point everyone's claiming something different.
The way I see it: Xexxar screwed up communicating that he still has issues with this particular map and participating in this discussion over here
Naotoshi and Zero__wind as well as Bonsai didn't bother asking the person who popped if they still have issues with the beatmap before nominating it themselves
We will hopefully push an update to the BNG rules soon so that this scenario is simply disallowed from happening.
The intro rhythms still seem to be overinterpreting this part of the song so it's being taken down for further discussion
i hope you people can behave yourselves
also the entire process was kinda screwed up from both sides and at this point everyone's claiming something different.
The way I see it: Xexxar screwed up communicating that he still has issues with this particular map and participating in this discussion over here
Naotoshi and Zero__wind as well as Bonsai didn't bother asking the person who popped if they still have issues with the beatmap before nominating it themselves
We will hopefully push an update to the BNG rules soon so that this scenario is simply disallowed from happening.
The intro rhythms still seem to be overinterpreting this part of the song so it's being taken down for further discussion
i hope you people can behave yourselves
I think the issue here is people are mistaking creating rhythms out of thin air over giving actual logic behind rhythm choices. The map takes simples rhythms that repeat over and over again and then takes paragraphs and paragraphs of text in order to convey what was created. This just seems so counter productive to me as to actually representing the song through your map.
In addition, it just seems very unintuitive to have such complex ideas for a very simple part of the song. And to me what makes this quite weird is how the start is just such a stand-out part compared to the rest of the song, while that part of the song is actually quite boring.
And lastly, I have to disagree with bor here. When no one understands what you're going for until you write paragraphs about it, you have failed to convey your ideas correctly. If this happens you should reconsider what you were going for in the first place and how best to get that through to other people in an effective way. So yeah, make people understand what you want to express in your rhythms not with mod replies, but with your actual map. I don't think the rhythms at the start are as bad as some other people, but the inconsistencies just clash with the rest of the map and is so out of place. Just my thoughts on the matter (they are quite a mess and disorganized sorry about that) and hopefully this can get cleared up as the rest of the map is quite nice
The undermapping of the start is fine, but since the beginning is so identical the entire way having more consistency with what you mapped vs what you ignored in the start would greatly help give a clearer idea of what is being done. In addition, the increase in note density during the intro doesn't fit too well since the song stays the same the whole way. You seem to jump over certain piano sounds and sometimes not.
In addition, it just seems very unintuitive to have such complex ideas for a very simple part of the song. And to me what makes this quite weird is how the start is just such a stand-out part compared to the rest of the song, while that part of the song is actually quite boring.
And lastly, I have to disagree with bor here. When no one understands what you're going for until you write paragraphs about it, you have failed to convey your ideas correctly. If this happens you should reconsider what you were going for in the first place and how best to get that through to other people in an effective way. So yeah, make people understand what you want to express in your rhythms not with mod replies, but with your actual map. I don't think the rhythms at the start are as bad as some other people, but the inconsistencies just clash with the rest of the map and is so out of place. Just my thoughts on the matter (they are quite a mess and disorganized sorry about that) and hopefully this can get cleared up as the rest of the map is quite nice
The undermapping of the start is fine, but since the beginning is so identical the entire way having more consistency with what you mapped vs what you ignored in the start would greatly help give a clearer idea of what is being done. In addition, the increase in note density during the intro doesn't fit too well since the song stays the same the whole way. You seem to jump over certain piano sounds and sometimes not.
@Shiirn re-read my posts please, I never said anything about the intro being boring, I wouldn't have mapped this song if I thought that lmao.. all I said is in the big picture of the map this section is too weak/not-intense for heavy 1/2 rhythming
@celerihreally don't know what you're talking about, the intro rhythms are the least complex rhythms in the mapnvm just saw the edit
@oko so with this whole veto debacle, I don't rly know what I need to do regarding gathering bn's. Is it assumed the veto is in place? (and uh that doesn't veto both nao AND zero's bubble right? that'd be really weird..)
And I'd be happy to discuss the intro rhythms more to make improvements/justify what I currently have, but so far there hasn't been any suggestions for better rhythms, just general complaints. I have nothing to go off of, so I don't really know where to go from here.
@celerih
@oko so with this whole veto debacle, I don't rly know what I need to do regarding gathering bn's. Is it assumed the veto is in place? (and uh that doesn't veto both nao AND zero's bubble right? that'd be really weird..)
And I'd be happy to discuss the intro rhythms more to make improvements/justify what I currently have, but so far there hasn't been any suggestions for better rhythms, just general complaints. I have nothing to go off of, so I don't really know where to go from here.
I really don't want to go into what parts of the map I don't like, because I don't particularly like a lot of it (however i really like 00:55:029 (1,2,3) - these sliders + their repeats)
04:00:183 (1) - This is pretty unacceptable though. Even disregarding the absolutely ridiculous SV and length, this isn't even justifiable with the music, as there is still vocals/background notes that can be mapped to, much better than a fucking 26.5/1 measure long slider with a SV of 0.19 at 70bpm. Please remap(?lol) this.
04:00:183 (1) - This is pretty unacceptable though. Even disregarding the absolutely ridiculous SV and length, this isn't even justifiable with the music, as there is still vocals/background notes that can be mapped to, much better than a fucking 26.5/1 measure long slider with a SV of 0.19 at 70bpm. Please remap(?lol) this.
after I see this map i must say I really enjoy it. almost every aspect of this map makes logical sense to me and I felt obligated to share this to you because I'm upset this is not currently ranked.
this map is very special to me because its something the ranked section doesn't normally see, its a breath of fresh air from all the generic smog rolling in from these popular uninspired mappers. thank you so much for complimenting such a beautiful song with an outstanding piece of art.
this is one i can enjoy watching in editor and playing in game
thanks so much ~
shot 48 stars but i wish i could shoot so many more
this map is very special to me because its something the ranked section doesn't normally see, its a breath of fresh air from all the generic smog rolling in from these popular uninspired mappers. thank you so much for complimenting such a beautiful song with an outstanding piece of art.
this is one i can enjoy watching in editor and playing in game
thanks so much ~
shot 48 stars but i wish i could shoot so many more
A pop for an app map always pops all the existing bubbles no matter it has got one or two
so from what I know about ranking process, there have to be additional BNs participating in the whole renominating procedure.
About map I've got not much to say.
so from what I know about ranking process, there have to be additional BNs participating in the whole renominating procedure.
About map I've got not much to say.
- I don't think the rhythm in intro part being problematic, the mapper has been consistently presenting the strongest notes with highest pitch in the whole part.
- Non-mainstream never directly makes a map bad.
I don't agree with you on a point, the intro rhythm. (let's ignore the map design for this time, because I think that's something pretty personnal)Zero__wind wrote: 1y6q53
- I don't think the rhythm in intro part being problematic, the mapper has been consistently presenting the strongest notes with highest pitch in the whole part.
- Non-mainstream never directly makes a map bad.
You can clearly hear in the beginning that there is the same melody from here 00:00:181 - to here 00:24:171 - but the mapper decided to change the rhythm on 4 measures. I agree the fact that he made that to avoid repetitive beats, and boringness, since the song is similar during the intro, so that's a good choice from him to try different stuff.
But to me, the real problem is that the intro rhythm use is not consistant, compared to the song. Instead of using a new rhythm pattern evertime, then why not using different visual patterns?
For instance, I'll take this pattern: 00:15:600 (3,4,5,1,2,3,4) - there is the same rhythm for this highlighted pattern. But why on the red tick is mapped here: 00:15:600 (3) - but not here: 00:17:743 - maybe there is a reason or else? On this map, it's kinda hard to see mapper's thoughts since in my opinion, the map is confusing.
That's just one of the multiple exemples in the intro, but I think that you got my point of view.
Other than that, I don't want to add anything else, since I don't like the visual of the map, but it's very personal, I can understand that people could like it. There is something that I like in the diff, is on the kiai. I like the way how the mapper got the map intensified during the kiai.
Don't see anything wrong here, I'm not trying to force changes or else, I'm just expressing my point of view.
Have a good day~
Thank you Pachiru, I have something to work off of now~
So most songs are designed into 8-measure sections. And typically these sections are divided into two halves, with the second half being more or less identical to the first half. The intro to this song is built this way. 00:13:886 - is where the section restarts and matches the pitch of 00:00:172 - . But the 4 measures in each half are clearly distinct, just listen to each downbeat and you can tell there's difference in pitch, and then stuff like 00:06:171 (3,4,1) - only appears in the second measure of each half, etc.
So I designed my rhythms to be consistent between each half, or at least I tried to. But I had also implemented more dense rhythms overall in the second half to transition into the vocals and show how more and more instruments were being introduced. I think this is where the confusion came from. Instead of two repeating instances of 4 different measures, most people saw eight different measures with little connecting them together.
So I've changed the second half to fit closer to the first half. I'm not going to make each measure totally identical, because they aren't. But the differences in each measure should be more apparent now, and the overall rhythm structure should be more coherent between the two halves.
I hope the new rhythms are acceptable.
EDIT: http://puu.sh/vfSSX/e24e0307ac.jpg Pachiru has given the ok to my changes/justifications, I hope others do too ;w;
So most songs are designed into 8-measure sections. And typically these sections are divided into two halves, with the second half being more or less identical to the first half. The intro to this song is built this way. 00:13:886 - is where the section restarts and matches the pitch of 00:00:172 - . But the 4 measures in each half are clearly distinct, just listen to each downbeat and you can tell there's difference in pitch, and then stuff like 00:06:171 (3,4,1) - only appears in the second measure of each half, etc.
So I designed my rhythms to be consistent between each half, or at least I tried to. But I had also implemented more dense rhythms overall in the second half to transition into the vocals and show how more and more instruments were being introduced. I think this is where the confusion came from. Instead of two repeating instances of 4 different measures, most people saw eight different measures with little connecting them together.
So I've changed the second half to fit closer to the first half. I'm not going to make each measure totally identical, because they aren't. But the differences in each measure should be more apparent now, and the overall rhythm structure should be more coherent between the two halves.
I hope the new rhythms are acceptable.
EDIT: http://puu.sh/vfSSX/e24e0307ac.jpg Pachiru has given the ok to my changes/justifications, I hope others do too ;w;
Diff
- 00:06:171 (3,4) - things like this are super weird, I feels like your rhythm choices are arbitrary made, without much consistency, for example why 00:06:814 (4) - deserves to be mapped, while other similar ones are mapped as slider tails or just ignored? I think you really should be more consistent with your own rhythms and make an agreement with modders, because this is the main issue that people have with your map.
- 00:12:171 (1) - The NC seems unnecessary to me, it doesn't highlight any big change in the music or a new measure
- 00:29:100 (3) - are you really mapping her breath instead of the piano at the white tick? if your argument is that you're following vocals, then why this 00:53:100 (4) - isn't a 1/2 slider
- 00:41:957 (2) - would you consider to use a 1/4 slider and then a circle at the red tick? to represent the vocals better as the other sliders do. If you notice the hold sound of the vocals stops at 00:42:171 - , also in
- 01:25:029 (3) - The finish hitsound doesn't fit the song or your rhythm at all. To be honest I didn't notice the nice change in the music at 01:25:457 (4) - because of the previous unfitting hitsound.
- 01:35:529 (6,7,8,1) - 8 should be stacked and 1 should be the jump, I really don't understand why 6 and 7 are stacked and 8 doesn't (8 is the weaker beat there), just adding that this doesn't represent the song at all.
- 01:56:727 (1,2,3) - The other thing that I really dislike about this map is the spacing being the same for different snaps in the same combos, I get that you want to make a tricky map, but I think your ways aren't the best, 02:07:013 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - 02:09:584 (1,2,1,2,3,1) - 02:53:084 (3,4,5) -
- 02:14:727 (2,3,4) - there are more examples, even at this one 3 is the stronger beat, but somehow you decide to make the jump at 4
- 02:29:941 (5,6,7) - 02:34:013 (1,2,3) - you also should consider mapping the 1/3s in a different way than the 1/8s.
- 04:00:183 (1) - I love slider art, but let's be honest, musically talking this is not justified by anything in the song. This one 05:18:598 (1) - works well
- 04:23:754 (1) - I don't like how this sounds, the change in the music starts at 04:23:968 - not before
- 05:03:384 (3) - I really don't like your hitsounds, mainly because I feel they aren't done according to the map. For example why 05:03:384 (3) - have a super strong cymbal in the repeat? and what make it sounds worst is the fact that these strong hitsounds aren't active beats in your map.
I don't know, I really have this feeling with the hitsounds, map and song, like they don't act like a whole, but as a different things merged into a beatmap
Personally I don't think the hitsounds work well with your rhythms choices (sometimes). - 00:46:243 (3) - why is this 1/4 repeat slider compared to 00:32:529 (2) - (from xexxar's mod) I also think you are being super inconsistent without a logic reason
I didn't hitsound this map, Naitoshi did (which you can see if you read the map description), so I suppose that's your issue with the hitsounding feeling separate from the beatmap. But that's a common and unavoidable thing among all collaborative efforts, and I've had enough positive opinions about the hitsounding to not be bothered by it. Will edit this post later after I get Naitoshi's comments on your specific hitsound modding.Natsu wrote: 1f6re
Diff
Reply to my mod, suggestion by suggestion, btw I'm also online in game if you want to discuss with me there.
- 00:06:171 (3,4) - things like this are super weird, I feels like your rhythm choices are arbitrary made, without much consistency, for example why 00:06:814 (4) - deserves to be mapped, while other similar ones are mapped as slider tails or just ignored? I think you really should be more consistent with your own rhythms and make an agreement with modders, because this is the main issue that people have with your map. your example is clearly a distinct and important highpitched note that only shows up here and 00:20:529 (4) - , please pay closer attention to the song before complaining about rhythm issues
- 00:12:171 (1) - The NC seems unnecessary to me, it doesn't highlight any big change in the music or a new measure dunno how that got there, fixed
- 00:29:100 (3) - are you really mapping her breath instead of the piano at the white tick? if your argument is that you're following vocals, then why this 00:53:100 (4) - isn't a 1/2 slider second timestamp is transitioning into the next section so i dont think extending the weak ending vocal is a good idea there
- 00:41:957 (2) - would you consider to use a 1/4 slider and then a circle at the red tick? to represent the vocals better as the other sliders do. If you notice the hold sound of the vocals stops at 00:42:171 - prefer mine to chain the vocal line together better, your suggested rhythm is too much clicking for me
- 01:35:529 (6,7,8,1) - 8 should be stacked and 1 should be the jump, I really don't understand why 6 and 7 are stacked and 8 doesn't (8 is the weaker beat there), just adding that this doesn't represent the song at all. this is just a special arrange to fit this point of the song that doesn't come up anywhere else, it emphasizes the 01:36:171 (1) - beat in a really nice way for me
- 01:56:727 (1,2,3) - The other thing that I really dislike about this map is the spacing being the same for different snaps in the same combos, I get that you want to make a tricky map, but I think your ways aren't the best, 02:07:013 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - 02:09:584 (1,2,1,2,3,1) - 02:53:084 (3,4,5) - i dont try to make a map tricky or anything like that, i just map to the song and then players with poor reading skill complain ww, the arranges you linked are simple enough to read with approach circles and are needed for cursor pacing for me so i won't be changing them
- 02:14:727 (2,3,4) - there are more examples, even at this one 3 is the stronger beat, but somehow you decide to make the jump at 4 i think the waiting of the cursor to click 3 is enough emphasis, and the snap to 4 fits well with the guitar vocals and drums for me
- 02:29:941 (5,6,7) - 02:34:013 (1,2,3) - you also should consider mapping the 1/3s in a different way than the 1/8s. not necessary, basic rhythm sense makes the 1/3 easy to expect bc it appears in the same parts of the song over and over
- 04:00:183 (1) - I love slider art, but let's be honest, musically talking this is not justified by anything in the song. This one 05:18:598 (1) - works well see p/5937014 for explanation of that slider, i will never ever change this for any reason ever ;-;
- 04:23:754 (1) - I don't like how this sounds, the change in the music starts at 04:23:968 - not before it clearly starts on the red tick, check at 25% speed if you must
- 00:46:243 (3) - why is this 1/4 repeat slider compared to 00:32:529 (2) - (from xexxar's mod) I also think you are being super inconsistent without a logic reason was originally to lead into the change in vocal rhythming, but either way seems to work well, so i'll change this
We seem to have different understandings of the song and of mapping in general, so most things were denied. I hope my wordings made some form of sense to you, bc I'm really bad at wording things ;; Let me know if I need to explain anything further.
Thanks for the more detailed check either way!
You're just trying to find things to point out his alleged incompetence. At least be observant about it...Xexxar wrote: 5a2638
wait, naotoshi bubbled a map he hitsounded?
"Do not nominate your own map, a collab map you participated in or a map you made a storyboard for. The entire modding process is focused around others ensuring that your map is ready for ranking, so doing this counteracts common sense."
that includes hitsounds lol
natz
Natsu wrote: 1f6re
Diff
Reply to my mod, suggestion by suggestion, btw I'm also online in game if you want to discuss with me there.
- 01:25:029 (3) - The finish hitsound doesn't fit the song or your rhythm at all. To be honest I didn't notice the nice change in the music at 01:25:457 (4) - because of the previous unfitting hitsound. I disagree, it's quiet enough so I'm not sure how it correlates at all with the next part.
- 05:03:384 (3) - I really don't like your hitsounds, mainly because I feel they aren't done according to the map. For example why 05:03:384 (3) - have a super strong cymbal in the repeat? because there is a cymbal finish? and what make it sounds worst is the fact that these strong hitsounds aren't active beats in your map.I don't know, I really have this feeling with the hitsounds, map and song, like they don't act like a whole, but as a different things merged into a beatmap
Personally I don't think the hitsounds work well with your rhythms choices (sometimes). I believe it doesn't matter as long as they're consistent with the timestamps given by the rhythms
why i don't think xexxar's veto should be held up basically
anyway
looks like all the discussion is done so rebubbling this...
(assuming natsu doesn't also decide to veto? it's been 2 weeks again)
zero__wind would count against xexxar if he decides to keep his amazing veto despite not ing it~
#1
anyway
looks like all the discussion is done so rebubbling this...
(assuming natsu doesn't also decide to veto? it's been 2 weeks again)
zero__wind would count against xexxar if he decides to keep his amazing veto despite not ing it~
#1
I wasn't ed at all.
@UndeadCapulet you really need to the people involved first, you didn't even tried to me to discuss about your map.
@Naotoshi I suppose you also ed Xexxar?
The intro is still randomly mapped and that big slider doesn't fit the song at all, tbh you can copy paste it at any song and it would work the same,
@UndeadCapulet you really need to the people involved first, you didn't even tried to me to discuss about your map.
@Naotoshi I suppose you also ed Xexxar?
The intro is still randomly mapped and that big slider doesn't fit the song at all, tbh you can copy paste it at any song and it would work the same,
god forbid i sound like i'm agreeing with natsu here but
the start isn't necessarily random per se, but it's still completely out of place and does not fit the theme or intention of the map as a whole, and that big slider is still one massive pussy copout.
no amount of bullshitting or whining or ranting will change these two facts. why can't you just man up and make these minor changes, UC?
the start isn't necessarily random per se, but it's still completely out of place and does not fit the theme or intention of the map as a whole, and that big slider is still one massive pussy copout.
no amount of bullshitting or whining or ranting will change these two facts. why can't you just man up and make these minor changes, UC?
I'm not breaking any BNG rules Xexxar, your veto is equivalent to a bubble from Zero__Wind. It resets it to an unbubbled state ofc, and since it's clear that you disagree fundamentally with the map I'm showing my for the mapper by bubbling the map with bubble #1. I'm not going behind your back because your back is not relevant here to go behind.
Well, I won't rebubble it again until I talk with Natsu, as I rebubbled on the assumption that he wouldn't veto the map and that he was just modding and providing . Thanks for dropping back in to clear things up!
edit: according to Loctav, Xexxar's veto counters both Zero__Wind and my bubbles.
On a side note, it seems like making a spread and doing the normal ranking procedure is the best bet for this now!
Well, I won't rebubble it again until I talk with Natsu, as I rebubbled on the assumption that he wouldn't veto the map and that he was just modding and providing . Thanks for dropping back in to clear things up!
edit: according to Loctav, Xexxar's veto counters both Zero__Wind and my bubbles.
On a side note, it seems like making a spread and doing the normal ranking procedure is the best bet for this now!
are posts like this really necessary? there's almost nothing constructive here.Shiirn wrote: 4dp13
that big slider is still one massive pussy copout.
no amount of bullshitting or whining or ranting will change these two facts. why can't you just man up and make these minor changes, UC?
not going to speak much on the rhythms or aesthetics as a whole, but i don't see what's wrong with the slider; UC's mapping is quite obviously sentimental, it's definitely mapped from the perspective of somebody who's listened to the song hundreds, if not thousands of times. i find when someone maps like that, there's overall less pattern and rhythm consistency and more focus on how each part feels to them. while i understand that alone isn't enough of a justification for contentious elements, i'd say the music backs it up too; just after a heavy guitar+drum section, it cuts back to sole piano. even compared to the intro, this is the bottom of the song's rhythm intensity, yet (arguably) the emotional peak - while maika's vocals are relatively steadfast throughout the song, here they start wavering out of control; she literally sounds like she's trying not to cry, breathing and sighing much more, before regaining her stoic composure at the end of the section, i feel like it'd be difficult to map this any other way but still manage to capture that "holding on" feeling. every time i get to this part of the song, my heart sinks a little, so i find it a bit weird to call it a copout - the two anchors in it are linked to particularly strong vocals (with the first one even ending a sentence), so it's not just fluff slider art just for the sake of slider art; the way i see it, you could have a traditional rhythm here instead, but it'd still be pretty uneventful and lose most of the emotional impact as well.
not sure what's going on with the map right now but some short suggestions:
SPOILER
00:16:457 (5) - i like this sound here, but have you tried shortening this slider to the red tick? the spacing to the next note would be a little more uniform, but i'm not sure if it'd play better.
00:32:529 (3) - i like how this plays when ctrl+g'd; it flows into the following sliders a little better imo.
02:56:727 (4) - aaa, please add a note here, it's so strong
00:32:529 (3) - i like how this plays when ctrl+g'd; it flows into the following sliders a little better imo.
02:56:727 (4) - aaa, please add a note here, it's so strong
good luck!
Thank you for the check!emmy wrote: 66592g
00:16:457 (5) - i like this sound here, but have you tried shortening this slider to the red tick? the spacing to the next note would be a little more uniform, but i'm not sure if it'd play better. prefer to map the ending beat here
00:32:529 (3) - i like how this plays when ctrl+g'd; it flows into the following sliders a little better imo. really want the small spacing at 00:32:314 (2,3) - and the direction change at 00:32:529 (3,4) - to separate the lead into the next measure from the previous vocal line
02:56:727 (4) - aaa, please add a note here, it's so strong there used to be note here but a bunch of people convinced me it'd be better to just stick to the strong drumbeats, tho i am going to revise the note placements here and use a trick to show off the cymbal w/out making it clickable
And thank you for all the , it means a lot ;w;
We did some IRC, added a whistle and changed a pattern that bother me a lot 
.
About the intro, UC explained it to me beat by beat and I ended understand their idea, even if is not my taste at mapping we should understand that every mapper map in a different way.
The long slider was explained multiple times and the mapper has strong feelings about it, I understand his point of view now.
About the visuals, not every map needs to be mapped with perfect aesthetics.
Anyways the map has been discussed a lot and the opinions about the map are divided, so I think is more about taste instead of real issues, I think is time to bring it another chance, bubbled~
.About the intro, UC explained it to me beat by beat and I ended understand their idea, even if is not my taste at mapping we should understand that every mapper map in a different way.
The long slider was explained multiple times and the mapper has strong feelings about it, I understand his point of view now.
About the visuals, not every map needs to be mapped with perfect aesthetics.
Anyways the map has been discussed a lot and the opinions about the map are divided, so I think is more about taste instead of real issues, I think is time to bring it another chance, bubbled~
I followed the thread for a while but at this point it got bit too huge, so I might mention things that were already discussed
drum-hitwhistle volume is much higher on left, which makes it a bit irritating
http://lasse.s-ul.eu/0hdZ4Zzt.jpg
=> http://puu.sh/vHf7O/030d8abdf3.wav or adjust it yourself
soft-hitfinish3 has lots of silence after the hitsound, making it unnecessarily huge. also has the volume balance issue, although much less noticeable
=> http://puu.sh/vHfcu/c8c451e60d.wav
how about it higher quality bg? just crop http://puu.sh/vHfnh/19a4bf76ec.png however you need it
02:34:441 (1) - even if it transitions into a break, I think having this spaced like you did for similar patterns before would be great as it's so different from 1-2-3 and a very distinct beat
04:23:915 - how about adding some green lines starting from here to make hs volume of the repeats scale with the sound there?
05:25:455 - 5% on this still seemed a bit too audible and sounded a bit off at the end of the map. how ing an actually blank hitnormal for the sliderend?
other stuff has already been discussed or doesn't really matter when looking at the map as a whole
actually found it quite enjoyable to play and the intro seems alright in gameplay too
I want to see how this goes, so let me know when you replied
drum-hitwhistle volume is much higher on left, which makes it a bit irritating
http://lasse.s-ul.eu/0hdZ4Zzt.jpg
=> http://puu.sh/vHf7O/030d8abdf3.wav or adjust it yourself
soft-hitfinish3 has lots of silence after the hitsound, making it unnecessarily huge. also has the volume balance issue, although much less noticeable
=> http://puu.sh/vHfcu/c8c451e60d.wav
how about it higher quality bg? just crop http://puu.sh/vHfnh/19a4bf76ec.png however you need it
02:34:441 (1) - even if it transitions into a break, I think having this spaced like you did for similar patterns before would be great as it's so different from 1-2-3 and a very distinct beat
04:23:915 - how about adding some green lines starting from here to make hs volume of the repeats scale with the sound there?
05:25:455 - 5% on this still seemed a bit too audible and sounded a bit off at the end of the map. how ing an actually blank hitnormal for the sliderend?
other stuff has already been discussed or doesn't really matter when looking at the map as a whole
actually found it quite enjoyable to play and the intro seems alright in gameplay too
I want to see how this goes, so let me know when you replied
Fixed all the hitsound stuff, 05:25:455 - has both a silent hitnormal and is set to 0% vol to hopefully give customsound ignorers the better experience as well. This is rankable .osu editing. Thanks a ton for all those files~
Cropped the bg to 16:9 res and dropped it in, the new sizing looks weird but it's how editor formatted it so it should be rankable as well. Still within the 1200 height limit. Thank you for this file as well~
Didn't change 02:34:441 (1) - because it's a really weakfeeling beat to me, especially compared to the strong 02:17:298 (1) - finishes/kiai resets that I use that snapping arrange for.
Thank you for the check Lasse! This was really unexpected and really helpful <3
Cropped the bg to 16:9 res and dropped it in, the new sizing looks weird but it's how editor formatted it so it should be rankable as well. Still within the 1200 height limit. Thank you for this file as well~
Didn't change 02:34:441 (1) - because it's a really weakfeeling beat to me, especially compared to the strong 02:17:298 (1) - finishes/kiai resets that I use that snapping arrange for.
Thank you for the check Lasse! This was really unexpected and really helpful <3
These are literally two different BNs from the original iconers lolShiirn wrote: 4dp13
proof that as long as you keep gonig back to the same bns you'll eventually be able to sneak something through...maybe
Not really a fan of the aesthetics, but I respect what you went for and I think it's a cool map. Good luck on rank!
Greetings
dw, not here to discuss visuals, even if I do feel they're unnecessarily uned for. Stuff like 00:51:600 (1) - is really cramped, and in reality slider leniency could give the same effect, for example, but that's not what I'll be discussing.
What I am here to discuss and have concerns about is 04:00:183 (1) - this 22 second long slider. This is the reason for the pop. I have read through the previous discussions about it, including your reply, so no need to repeat yourself.
For the problems it poses, in summary:
The player literally just holds down a button and patiently waits for the sliderball to move while listening to the vocals in the background. While it may be different and unique, it's not really preferable in a game design perspective. This is a rhythm game at it's core, and relevance to the song is important, so to skip out on clear distinctions in the song would seemingly contradict that, even if the point is to lower the density. I am aware of the mapping philosophy where emphasis is more important than coverage, but in this case not covering things will in turn damage the accentuation, thus posing an issue either way, regardless of these perspectives. This is where B comes in to the picture.
For B:
The said distinctions happen at every other measure, aka 04:07:040 - 04:13:897 - 04:20:754 - . This is generally how songs are structured, as you are also aware of, judging from your thoughts on consistency. From what you've written, you feel that the vocals are rather cohesive and connected within this hypermeasure. In regards to song structure, however, they're all divided into different parts. At 04:06:611 - , a new stanza begins and leads into 04:07:040 - . 04:11:325 - starts a 1/1 pattern, but then adds a 1/2 at 04:13:468 - as transition into the next part, 04:13:897 - . Vocals go idle at 04:20:325 - and piano takes priority 04:20:754 - , all indicating some kind of transition from one part into another. Every transition also lifts the tension; the background vocals go quieter and then gain momentum again for each part. At this point there are one of two ways to improve the accentuation of this, leading us to the solutions.
Possible solutions:
One way to solve B alone, is to have the slider change direction on each distinction. Not something I would suggest, though, as A remains for the most part; it would make it slightly more engaging in a way, but it would still be largely monotonous. To solve both points, I would suggest you split it up. Would recommend a separation on red ticks, both for the sake of reflection as well as for making the lengthened vocals stand out more in accordance with your intentions.
In contrast, 05:18:598 (1) - is much more acceptable since it's all the same sound with only one instrument playing, not divided into parts in the song, etc.
Anyway, your background is beyond the acceptable dimensions and is unrankable as per the Ranking Criteria, thus why I'll have to be popping this either way:
Scaled down to 1920x1200
dw, not here to discuss visuals, even if I do feel they're unnecessarily uned for. Stuff like 00:51:600 (1) - is really cramped, and in reality slider leniency could give the same effect, for example, but that's not what I'll be discussing.
What I am here to discuss and have concerns about is 04:00:183 (1) - this 22 second long slider. This is the reason for the pop. I have read through the previous discussions about it, including your reply, so no need to repeat yourself.
For the problems it poses, in summary:
- It is monotonous in gameplay and offers not much more than visuals.
- In of reflection of the song, it does reflect the background vocals as a whole, but it misses musical distinctions throughout.
The player literally just holds down a button and patiently waits for the sliderball to move while listening to the vocals in the background. While it may be different and unique, it's not really preferable in a game design perspective. This is a rhythm game at it's core, and relevance to the song is important, so to skip out on clear distinctions in the song would seemingly contradict that, even if the point is to lower the density. I am aware of the mapping philosophy where emphasis is more important than coverage, but in this case not covering things will in turn damage the accentuation, thus posing an issue either way, regardless of these perspectives. This is where B comes in to the picture.
For B:
The said distinctions happen at every other measure, aka 04:07:040 - 04:13:897 - 04:20:754 - . This is generally how songs are structured, as you are also aware of, judging from your thoughts on consistency. From what you've written, you feel that the vocals are rather cohesive and connected within this hypermeasure. In regards to song structure, however, they're all divided into different parts. At 04:06:611 - , a new stanza begins and leads into 04:07:040 - . 04:11:325 - starts a 1/1 pattern, but then adds a 1/2 at 04:13:468 - as transition into the next part, 04:13:897 - . Vocals go idle at 04:20:325 - and piano takes priority 04:20:754 - , all indicating some kind of transition from one part into another. Every transition also lifts the tension; the background vocals go quieter and then gain momentum again for each part. At this point there are one of two ways to improve the accentuation of this, leading us to the solutions.
Possible solutions:
One way to solve B alone, is to have the slider change direction on each distinction. Not something I would suggest, though, as A remains for the most part; it would make it slightly more engaging in a way, but it would still be largely monotonous. To solve both points, I would suggest you split it up. Would recommend a separation on red ticks, both for the sake of reflection as well as for making the lengthened vocals stand out more in accordance with your intentions.
In contrast, 05:18:598 (1) - is much more acceptable since it's all the same sound with only one instrument playing, not divided into parts in the song, etc.
Anyway, your background is beyond the acceptable dimensions and is unrankable as per the Ranking Criteria, thus why I'll have to be popping this either way:
Background images must not exceed a width of 1920 pixels and a height of 1200 pixels. Images with lower vertical or horizontal resolutions than that of the player's will be upscaled to fit the entire screen.
Scaled down to 1920x1200
Fixed the bg, current should be considered rankable bc why on earth does this 16:9 res game use 16:10 res bgs but whatever
Really don't want to separate that slider into red ticks, it separates the section out too much for me. And I don't want to bounce off of redpoints because that draws too much attention to specific beats when the whole point is for this section to feel connected in one long vocal line w/ the background vocalists. I appreciate your concerns, but if I felt there was any possible alternative that fits my desires for that part I would've done it already after all this discussion.
Thank you for keeping an open mind about the visuals/rhythms/etc., and thank you for trying to find alternatives for that part to your best efforts. I don't know what else to say that hasn't already, but I really want to hold a 22 second slider there. Nothing else will work for me ;w;
Really don't want to separate that slider into red ticks, it separates the section out too much for me. And I don't want to bounce off of redpoints because that draws too much attention to specific beats when the whole point is for this section to feel connected in one long vocal line w/ the background vocalists. I appreciate your concerns, but if I felt there was any possible alternative that fits my desires for that part I would've done it already after all this discussion.
Thank you for keeping an open mind about the visuals/rhythms/etc., and thank you for trying to find alternatives for that part to your best efforts. I don't know what else to say that hasn't already, but I really want to hold a 22 second slider there. Nothing else will work for me ;w;
If absolutely nothing else will work for you, then it's clearly more important to you than ranking the map.
There's nothing wrong with that. The buzz sliders in cherry blossoms explode was more important to me than ranking, until I was backhanded into changing the sliders anyway and then it was "might as well rank them then".
But don't expect "But I want it my way" to be valid enough for the ranking process. Ranking is a peer review process, not a personal assessment.
There's nothing wrong with that. The buzz sliders in cherry blossoms explode was more important to me than ranking, until I was backhanded into changing the sliders anyway and then it was "might as well rank them then".
But don't expect "But I want it my way" to be valid enough for the ranking process. Ranking is a peer review process, not a personal assessment.
Discussed with UC in-game
logs
In conclusion, a veto is currently maintained as per the original post, and the corresponding discussion has taken place.
Naxess: sup
UndeadCapulet: o/
Naxess: Alright so I don't believe the slider to be acceptable in it's current state
Naxess: I do understand that you'd like to keep it, but it just misses out on way too many aspects as is
Naxess: It does work as contrast to other parts, but in this case it's a bit extreme, to the point where the only difference between it and a break is basically that you're holding down a button
Naxess: What do you think?
UndeadCapulet: i can understand where you're coming from, but there are other differences as well
UndeadCapulet: (btw sorry for slow responses, im rly slow typer/trying to word things well is hard)
Naxess: dw lol
UndeadCapulet: during a break hp drain stops, bg brightens, and the player can freely move the cursor how they please, even completely lifting their hand from the mouse/tablet
UndeadCapulet: it's a moment of relaxation
UndeadCapulet: my slider makes the player keep holding down a button and keep their cursor bound to the sliderbody, to try to work like a moment of tension
UndeadCapulet: and i think you read this? but its not my idea alone, i got it from another map that happened to have the same musical requirements
UndeadCapulet: (the long, constant background noise during the least intense part of the song to create tension before the last kiai)
Naxess: I see where you're coming from, but the song isn't just a really long held note going over these sections, it's background vocals, chorals, which in turn have moments of pause. Places where the tension is lifted. That's where the distinctions happen for the most part.
UndeadCapulet: ACTION is listening to [https://osu-ppy-sh.tvgratuite.org/b/722224 Sawai Miku - Colorful. (Asterisk DnB Remix)]
UndeadCapulet: it was this map, when it was first ed it had a long slow slider like mine
Naxess: For example, if you listen right before 04:07:040 - , and then listen to that beat, you'll notice the vocals gain in strength
UndeadCapulet: it was removed for hitsounding unrankability issues
UndeadCapulet: and if you check disqus comments people were sad about it
UndeadCapulet: it was placed from 03:33:117 - to 03:42:546 -
UndeadCapulet: or so
UndeadCapulet: i understand that there's other stuff going on in the song at that point, but i think drawing attention to those parts detracts from the map as a whole
Naxess: In what way?
UndeadCapulet: well, gonna try to not repeat myself but
UndeadCapulet: this part is technically quieter and less intense than any other point in the song
UndeadCapulet: but its super emotionally dense, it's the chorus vocals again, mika's about to cry, etc.
UndeadCapulet: and this point in the song is building up a ton of tension that will be released in the kiai
UndeadCapulet: i think breaking up this slider at all won't fit because it removes that feeling of tension
Naxess: Even while crying you need to breathe and release the tension though, if you want to put it that way.
Naxess: I mean even split up it will still build up towards kiai due to the difference in density, right?
UndeadCapulet: mm, i think any change in clicking, even 2 sliders vs 1, draws too much attention to a certain beat, even though this part of the song is so connected-feeling, and the release ruins the building of tension
UndeadCapulet: idk, i doubt i'll be able to convince you differently :x
UndeadCapulet: the best hope i can do is that, this is just a matter of opinion, and there are a bunch of people on both sides
UndeadCapulet: which is why i bring up things like the colorful map
Naxess: So basically you want to build tension, but that isn't possible any other way... that's the reasoning Bonsai mentioned hm hm
UndeadCapulet: mhm
Naxess: Even as I was making the first post, I knew that tension would be the dilemma faced here. The reason why I still made the post, regardless of knowing all this, is because said method of building tension is neither warranted by the song, nor reflective of it in gameplay. The song goes on with multiple distinctions throughout this section and plays an active role, not an idle one which solely holding down a button would suggest. This is where the dilemma happens. It's trading precise accentuation for overall accentuation, basically spreading out one prcinple throughout a large area. It's like undermapping in a way, but to an extreme degree where literally a single click corresponds to a whole section of a song. A time in which the player will solely hold down a button and rest, repositioning their hand properly and waiting for the 20 seconds to , rather than feeling strain or tension. So in conclusion, while I see your point, the method used misses more of the song than it reflects, and would ultimately be more determinental to gameplay and relevance to the song as a whole than anything.
UndeadCapulet: http://puu.sh/vK0oF/9dd116dcd6.jpg
UndeadCapulet: :x
Naxess: It probably truncated didn't it
UndeadCapulet: yeah that's what i was trying to show w/ the ss
Naxess: So basically the dilemma we're facing is
Naxess: Overall accentuation vs precise accentuation
UndeadCapulet: yep
UndeadCapulet: both ways are valid to me, but i prefer the one i've used
UndeadCapulet: and i guess you think only one is valid?
Naxess: It's undermapped to such an extreme degree that literally just one button s for a whole section
Naxess: And when listening to the song, there's much more going on
Naxess: I mean I sort of get where you're coming from with the tension, but the player will basically just hold down the key while repositioning and restig their hand
Naxess: rather than feeling strain or tension
Naxess: and in the end, it would ultimately be more determinental to the gameplay and the relevance to the song than anything else
Naxess: The importance to note in the dilemma is that it's not just a choice
Naxess: It's not just one or both are right
Naxess: There's a balance to be struck
Naxess: And I think we're edging a bit too far towards one side of that balance, especially when considering what the song has to offer
Naxess: Does this make sense?
UndeadCapulet: sorta, tho i always tend towards the extreme bc thats what i learned from all my fav mappers :P
Naxess: Just make sure not to go too extreme like this lol
UndeadCapulet: no, extremes always :v
UndeadCapulet: well, regardless of outcome, thanks for y'know
UndeadCapulet: actually discussing and stuff
Naxess: ye np np
UndeadCapulet: i appreciate it :3
UndeadCapulet: i do think there's also some weight to the fact that 5 bn's have pushed this forward leans to my favor, but i know that's not a strong argument :P
UndeadCapulet: if you could, a final post in the thread would be great
UndeadCapulet: just so there isn't like a
UndeadCapulet: "uh is this veto'd or not" thing like w/ earlier
Naxess: Ye I'll post and sum up stuff
UndeadCapulet: thanks~