{"content":"\n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n Yauxo<\/a>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n 1,622 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed June 2011<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Yauxo<\/a>\n\n \n 2014-12-22T21:12:21+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n While we're at it, here's a thing that buggs me quite much.\u25a0 I really love<\/strong> these Streams 04:05:781 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16) - and the idea behind them, but I really hate<\/strong> the fact that these sharp turns sometimes happen on normal beats (and not on the very strong ones that'd indicate such a change) or vocals. This goes for:04:09:075 (7) - 04:13:238 (7) - 04:17:313 (7) - 04:18:786 (7) - 04:24:423 (8) - 04:45:318 (9) - 04:46:706 (9) - 04:48:180 (10) - It'd feel more natural if you'd only use these for the very strong beat in the song (best example is the first stream Ive posted).\u25a0 I would also shape 04:22:081 (13,14,15,16) - more curvy to the right. There's no real reason to have the start of the next combo on the right side if it's shaped like that.Edit: oh, also. These things 01:28:584 (6,7,8) - feel extremely awkward. You're most likely expecting a repeat Slider like the tons of the times you've had that one before, but there's none and you just suddenly have to play the next repeat Slider that starts on a red tick (opposed to the all-white-tick combo before that)<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n Last edited by Yauxo<\/a> 2014-12-22T21:16:08+00:00<\/time>, edited 1 time in total.\n <\/div>\n \n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n Pappy<\/a>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n 1,020 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed August 2013<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Pappy<\/a>\n\n \n 2014-12-22T21:31:41+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n MillhioreF wrote:<\/h4>05:00:925 (2,3,4,5,1) - Not necessarily a problem, but can anyone even FC this? 1.20x note spacing on 2 x 2.8 slider velocity.<\/blockquote>Just FCed this part after clicking \"test\" million times in editor. \/o\/<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n -Soba-<\/a>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n 374 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed January 2011<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n -Soba-<\/a>\n\n \n 2014-12-22T21:39:43+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n Pappy wrote:<\/h4>MillhioreF wrote:<\/h4>05:00:925 (2,3,4,5,1) - Not necessarily a problem, but can anyone even FC this? 1.20x note spacing on 2 x 2.8 slider velocity.<\/blockquote>Just FCed this part after clicking \"test\" million times in editor. \/o\/<\/blockquote>I can attest to their fcability!<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/span>\n <\/span>\n <\/div>\n \n MillhioreF<\/a>\n\n \n Pro Tester\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n 5,004 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed July 2011<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n MillhioreF<\/a>\n\n \n 2014-12-22T21:42:44+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n Yeah, that was a bad question. I should have asked if anyone can FC them _reliably_.<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n -Soba-<\/a>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n 374 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed January 2011<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n -Soba-<\/a>\n\n \n 2014-12-22T22:00:26+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n MillhioreF wrote:<\/h4>Yeah, that was a bad question. I should have asked if anyone can FC them _reliably_.<\/blockquote>I fc the first of the two at the end reliably, but for some reason I always miss on the second one ):<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n Nyxa<\/a>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n 848 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed October 2013<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Nyxa<\/a>\n\n \n 2014-12-22T22:04:16+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n I don't recall something having to be FCable reliably to be good or enjoyableIf it's possible to humanly FC it, I don't really see the issueAlso yeah sil you really picked the worst possible example hereI think this<\/a> would be a better example when it comes to recently ranked hard mapsOr, hell, even this<\/a> would count (the fact that it's a HW map doesn't really make the point any less valid, considering that we're talking about rankable difficulty here)But I think that Elemental Creation<\/a> is probably the #1 example of recently ranked extremely hard maps. Why do all of those maps get to , but not this one? Yeah, it could see some improvements here and there, but that doesn't mean that you should recommend it to stay in the graveyard. That's really rude, and using a map's difficulty as a reason for it to stay graved is just a weak argument.When it comes to quality, I'd say that it's quite high, and I've seen other s agree, but others would also say it's not. This is fine, and it happens on every map. There is no map that everybody loves, and that's fine. So why do I see so many people putting their personal opinion over pointing out objective issues within the map?I really can't understand why despite all the previous map dramas people still can't get over themselves and their preferences<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n unko<\/a>\n\n \n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n 521 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed March 2014<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n unko<\/a>\n\n \n 2014-12-22T22:20:43+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n i really don't get what qualifies as rankable and what doesn't anymore. one shitty low quality map gets ranked, the next doesn't. it's an all or none situation, so make it be that way.<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n Scottish Goose<\/a>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n 8 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed August 2014<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Scottish Goose<\/a>\n\n \n 2014-12-22T22:26:00+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n nookls wrote:<\/h4>i really don't get what qualifies as rankable and what doesn't anymore. one shitty low quality map gets ranked, the next doesn't. it's an all or none situation, so make it be that way.<\/blockquote>I agree with this. Then there's some good un-ranked maps that don't get ranked. Like gg.<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n -Soba-<\/a>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n 374 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed January 2011<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n -Soba-<\/a>\n\n \n 2014-12-22T22:27:57+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n nookls wrote:<\/h4>i really don't get what qualifies as rankable and what doesn't anymore. one shitty low quality map gets ranked, the next doesn't. it's an all or none situation, so make it be that way.<\/blockquote>I just don't see what makes this a \"shitty low quality map\". The map is easy to read and feels, at least to me, like it matches the song. The only gripe I can see is that it's moderately difficult to play. And I don't see why difficulty of playing should factor into ranking a map. I'm not a mapper so I know my opinion might not hold much weight at all, but as a player I'm really sad to see this map go ): it seemed like a breath of fresh air and I really enjoyed it<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/span>\n <\/span>\n <\/div>\n \n Mismagius<\/a>\n\n \n Beatmap Nominator\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n \n <\/i>\n <\/div>\n <\/a>\n\n \n <\/i>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n 9,340 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n \n ed July 2008<\/strong>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n Mismagius<\/a>\n\n \n 2014-12-22T22:51:09+00:00<\/time>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n Soap755 wrote:<\/h4>nookls wrote:<\/h4>i really don't get what qualifies as rankable and what doesn't anymore. one shitty low quality map gets ranked, the next doesn't. it's an all or none situation, so make it be that way.<\/blockquote>I agree with this. Then there's some good un-ranked maps that don't get ranked. Like gg.<\/blockquote>OH NO people have different opinions!What if the maps that you consider good, are actually 1\/2 spam with no spacing which people worship as \"the best maps\" such as some of caren's or silynn's maps, that barely follow anything in the ranking criteria and have zero technical qualify?People should know that maps that get ranked are the ones who have rankable quality. If you don't like it, someone else does. That's why it got ranked in the first place. People should really acknowledge that other people have different opinions.\"This map is an overmapped piece of shit, it's not an opinion, it's a fact! just listen to the music guys, you're wrong and i'm right!!!!!\"<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n Onodera Marika<\/a>\n\n \n \n \n \n \n <\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n 32 posts\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n\n 6y6g41