752nurupo_2023-5-14 03:42Reply

2023/05/14

Level changed to 36.

74LuiCat2022-7-29 01:53Reply

@PlusPearPi Noone is ultimately right in an objective way. But I'm glad you like it ^^

71LuiCat2022-4-7 16:11Reply

The chart is back stable. As already said: I will respect what Amami.A.Myamsar insist to be purposeful design choices, such as non-repeated patterns, HS, overmap note filling (e.g. 15-16). I will not question 2nurupo_ why he thinks that his proposed design choice is more acceptable than currently the chart has, but to be fair, digging too much into argument between perceptual understanding destroys the purpose of participating in creations for both parties.

I will proceed just as what I granted in my defense, unless there is dispution with further reasonings (e.g. why someone's understanding is superior than others).

70LuiCat2022-4-6 04:48Reply

Note: The defense below is never to be a part of any rules

DM me (QQ/Discord) or @2nurupo_ if you need help.

Here is my defense for the chart and 2nu's summary on the Taiko mapper community. (Sorry for the long article)

2nurupo_: Please be aware that the weakness of mine may make the text somehow strange.

Introduction: Alternatively, I would think that there is never an ultimate understanding of anything. We continue to improve ours simply by putting it into practice or compare with others. That's why we are here and heading forward.

Argument (Mostly cliches)

If you feel confusion or find anything uncomfortable, please immediately stop reading and skip to the Conclusions section directly.

If you find your belief or intuition offended by the description, please DM me or find me on Discord/QQ, so I can know which part need to be abridged.

1. Assertion on Chart Creators (Mappers)

We are a group of rhythm game enthusiasts who would like to put the off-work time and energy into things we like. We want ideal creations, and want to guarantee the ideal condition for us to continue the realization of our beliefs.

We all possess our own ability to take initiative. We are individual entities; each of us is THE unique one who can proactively apply one's own set of knowledge and understanding of the materialistic world into practice.

2. Assertion on Chart as a Product

Chart/scores/beatmaps in rhythm games are a form of fruits of labor.

They generally follow the way of production as game levels, produced in the process of level design and quality control.

The amount of concrete labor into creating the chart congeals into the use-value of the chart, which appears as the quality of the chart as recognized by general players (in contrast to a specific player).

The use-value of any written chart will not be transferred to any other entity. It will, however, benefit writing a new chart or an improved version of the original chart by lowering the amount of required labor for a similar kind of work.

2.a The History of Chart Production in Malody Taiko

It is noticeable that the amount of necessary labor required to produce a single chart affects the amount of total outcome of charts that are produced.

Generally, as the consensus of us Chinese mappers, the ultimate mindset of quality control for Stable chart sets is to have a balance between quantity and quality. We all have a sufficient understanding of why we need high-quality charts for the long-term manageable chart base.

However, it is highly noticeable that when we apply those understandings strictly into practice, the amount of charts that could pass the criteria of Stable is too low, and will be mostly only from the Publishers themselves. This is the history of Malody Taiko around the time that Japanese players are still at a low activity here.

As all of the existing publishers went on full-time jobs, the amount of charts that we can create becomes too low. This is when the submission system was requested by us and added by woc2006. The formal pipeline of communications between mappers and Publishers start to build up.

Still, the issue of labor comes back again at us: attracted mappers start to come up, but as we cannot guarantee that each of them takes enough amount of labor into improving the chart, it takes Publishers to fill out those lacking amount of labor to make sure the chart meets the standard of quality. (This is the so-called procedure of "modding")

3. Assertion on Productivity

The procedure of lowering the amount of required labor, as just mentioned in section 2.a Assertion on Chart as a Product, does not automatically happen. It occurs when chart creators refer to or avoid the note patterns from the existing chart, as a convenient way to guarantee the use-value of the new creation. Unconsciously, this is based on an existing implicit understanding of "why using certain note patterns would lead to good or bad results" and "under what condition are the note patterns valid" (if you allow this deteriorated explanation).

It's apparent that the mentioned "implicit understanding" is a type of perceptual understanding of a chart's use-value, or say, the quality of a chart.

This perceptual understanding, as a result of the initiatives of individual chart creators (mentioned in section 1. Assertion on Chart Creators), cannot be perfectly reproduced or reinterpreted by people other than the one who takes the initiatives. It takes effort for other people to gain understandings of the chart creator who take the initiative. Once the first initiative chart creator limits providing sufficient information for other people to learn (for example, if publishers stop writing judge's words in MTMC), this way of reusing the perceptual understanding is suppressed.

Side Note:

4. Assertion on Documentations

To allow such understanding not to be limited by the activity of a person, and to keep a permanent, accessible by the public, and explicit understanding (can be taken as "written theories") as a reference for all to improve their perceptual ones, the common practice is to document the process.

Notice that many of us would once or for a few times eager to write a document of chart writing methodologies; there are existing descriptions on the understanding of chart quality, but the way to interpret the text and put it into practice is still a part of very perceptual and implicit understanding from the author of the document. The fact of degradation of information — written text does not accurately reflect our possessed ideas and can be misinterpreted by readers — is one of the important factors that prevent us from creating "possibly flawed" short pieces of reading materials.

I would once again mention a fundamental law of matters: there is no ultimate truth in understanding the world. (Denying this would deny the whole purpose of the pursuit of personal fulfillment.)

In principles, there is no "ultimate understanding" of chart quality. But this assertion does not translate into "it is non-sense to improve understanding on chart quality".

This means, that to allow flawed documents does not mean to deny the value of one's possessed understanding (but motivated attacks on the flaw is). Even if the document is proven wrong by the results from practices, it can be once more corrected or replaced with other documents that can support a larger range of practices. This process is widely called iteration.

With the allowance (mostly from the author themselves) of posting less polished documentation and allowing people to create secondary works based on it, the process of iteration will naturally happen, thus pushing the process of improving the permanent and explicit understanding.

5. Assertion on Creativity, Diversity, and Individual Understandings

The description of an explicit understanding of chart quality by documentation sets an alarm: Does it means to unite all diverse perceptual understandings, such that the creativity of people and the diversity in chart styles will be destroyed?

In order not to obfuscate the definition of terms, this question needs to be subdivided into three parts: (a) Does unite understandings mean the existence of the ultimate understanding? (b) Does unifying of understandings destroy creativity and diversity? (c) Is documentation the same as this process of unification process?

5.a Question: Does unite understandings mean the existence of the ultimate understanding?

Short answer: NO, if you understand why metaphysics is rejected by modern philosophy.

One deteriorated explanation adapted from arguments on metaphysics: Just simply By allowing the ultimate understanding to exist, the ultimate understanding is by nature unchanging (otherwise it will be imperfect and cannot be the ultimate understanding). Then this ultimate understanding cannot be determined by a human, as a human is an entity that changes over time (even for the creators of the original taiko game). This means this ultimate understanding cannot interact with us during any activities, thus ultimate understanding's existence marks itself unable to be a piece of practical information, contradicting the property of "understanding". This means ultimate understanding does not necessarily exist.

There are many materials explaining why metaphysics is rejected in history in improving understanding in many areas of research or applications. The history of philosophy of science is a good starting point to learn about this.

5.b Question: Does unifying of understandings destroy creativity and diversity?

Short answer: Yes, if uniting understandings doesn't involve down-to-earth practices.

The nature of perceptual understanding is to allow each individual to take initiative and gain experience and knowledge through independent practices. Intuitively, experiences are gained from practices, and then made into concise knowledge with the help of language. This is a process that can only happen by individuals, rather than a group of people as a whole.

To force a united understanding is against the purpose of gaining a better understanding: the process of pursuing united understanding without being continuously examined by practices works by redigesting existing understanding and denying the part that is "perceptually not fitting the whole picture".

However, the situation is different if the uniting process is based on practices. Through the process of dialectics, the impractical part of the understanding is examined and discarded, then replaced by more advanced understandings that may or may not be a part of understandings from external individuals.

5.c Question: Does documentation pushes this process of unification process?

Short answer: No, not necessarily.

The answer to this question is counterintuitive. Seems that we've already mentioned the term "explicit understanding" as an abstract term of documentation. Isn't this just a different way of saying "let the document be the united understanding"?

I would like to disappoint you: to say "explicit understanding is united understanding" is not different from denying the ability to take the initiatives of individual chart creators.

To allow the existence of creativity of chart creators from the ability to take initiatives, it's essential to reacquaint the ability of an individual: each of us is THE unique one who can proactively apply one's own set of knowledge and understanding of the materialistic world into practice.

In pursuit to put all kinds of theories into practice, we must rely on our own implicit but intuitive understanding but not the explicitly written one. We — as living humans — are moving in time such that the perception of the world is constantly improving, which means the explicit understanding cannot match our perceptions accurately over time (this is a very important fundamental from the rejection of metaphysics).

To have explicit understandings and individual implicit understandings to exist simultaneously, we push the process of improving a public permanent material for everyone to guarantee the chart quality as the outcome of their limited time on providing the concrete labor for the chart, as concluded in section 3. Assertion on Productivity and 4. Assertion on Documentations, which serves the purpose of chart creation as addressed in 2. Assertion on Chart as a Product.

EX. Assertion on Suitable Mode of Production

Notice an important lesson from the whole history of humans, in records of numerous civilizations: we shouldn't adapt to a progressive mode of production without guaranteeing the productivity level as the fundamental support of the superstructure.

I believe a contextual "proposal of workflow" can be easily condensed from my argument to be the suitable methodology for the chart creation community, as it has already been heavily practiced in all similar types of popular communities. YouTube and social media with persistent records make this possible: articles and videos about everything — as the "explicit understanding" — allow people to take initiatives in learning and practicing on improving the quality of their created charts.

Conclusion & Epilogue

Sorry for this long reply under the seemingly simple "chart quality issue" thread. I'd rather dig out the more rooted issue of the Malody Taiko mapper community rather than obeying under-discussed suggestions which is indisputably started with vandalism. The decision standing on the result is unyielding:

We agree that all modification opinions from 2nurupo_ are valid. This chart will make modifications to fatal issues such as unintentional wrong sound picking. However, in respect of Amami.A.Myamsar's initiatives and my strong understanding of the necessity of his chart design, further modifications will only be voluntarily conducted by Amami.A.Myamsar based on his interpretation on 2nurupo_'s modification opinions.

As a result of this decision, I will take whichever subsequent resubmission from Amami.A.Myamsar as the Stable, as long as his work takes care of the fatal issues (more fatal than being a purposeful design choice) that most publishers agree with.

This definite unwelcomed decision is also accompanied by a clear declaration of one expect-by-all change in roles: I will retire from being a Publisher without simultaneously being a developer of this game. (Notice that what 2nurupo_ claimed about me is ignorant and wrong: I was indeed recognized explicitly as a Publisher and am skilled in modding Stable submissions. Claiming quality issue on obvious design choices doesn't justify the accusation of being an under-skilled Publisher.)

I would imagine further strong arguments coming in debating on this decision or the assertions that I've made in this text. The process of improving the understanding via dialectic discussions is essential for heading towards the way of improvement.

Most supporting materials (especially the philosophic terms) that I've mentioned can be easily studied on the internet and used as a reference even if you shall take a worldview opposite of mine. It doesn't matter if people understand things differently, but what they act (by taking their own initiatives) matters.

I hope you all find this a clear representative of my mindset and a solid explanation of how I insist on guiding the realizations for a better future for Malody Taiko and all aspects of Malody.

66LuiCat2022-4-5 22:35Reply

The amount of work I took in my reply to everyone is excessive... It has been 1290 words and still growing

Please wait patiently and prepare for a big one: it has more in-depth analysis of the current status of Malody Taiko mapper community, rather than a simple one-sided-maybe-biased opinion from the one who stabled this chart.

63LuiCat2022-4-5 18:18Reply

@creayus The fact that people are brave to point out exactly why the chart is bad for gameplay, even if it is based on perceptual standards, is remarkably progressive and is clearly pointing towards a healthy and long-lasting direction for the taiko mapper community.

The translation on 2nurupo_'s comment is sending out soon. I will as well add my opposing arguments on both the chart and the state of the community, and try to come into a common agreement on this chart

62creayus2022-4-5 03:58Reply

@LuiCat Personally, what I thought was the most improbable part of the Stable chart was that the note spacing was wrong around #54. I can easily see this on the editor screen, and I don't know why they didn't check it before making it Stable. Also, 2nurupo_ says this point is #1 important.

I can understand why you would want to increase the difficulty level by forcibly placing notes on the overmap chart, but even so, there are too many areas where you are overdoing it. You should make better use of renda and balloons.

Personally, I think that #159, #185-#191, #297, #455, #459 (there are several places where the visibility is terrible due to the HS change, which covers the following notes), #489, #515, #547, and #567 are problematic in terms of playability. These are all written in a color scheme that makes them very difficult to beat when played.

Other problems include completely wrong note-taking for the tune. However, 2nurupo_ has pointed out almost all the problems here, so please refer to that one.

You mentioned earlier that the score is enjoyable for players aiming for M3 to M4, but from our point of view, it is not an enjoyable score no matter what score you are aiming for.

60LuiCat2022-4-5 00:51Reply

@creayus Hi, unpleasantly speaking: the chart will be only unstabled as soon as we have documented the consensus on explicit why the chart is bad here to process on unstable the chart. You can refer to my comment for why this is important before @2nurupo_ 's reply.

59creayus2022-4-4 23:59Reply

@LuiCat Please focus on either fixing this score or stop Stable before you consider the level of the score. Of course, as mas3 said, the problem is that the setting level is wrong, but the main problem is that this chart is set as Stable. Even if you set the appropriate level for this score, no one will be satisfied with the situation as it is.