Guest
home
beatmaps
rankings
community
store
help
forum
  1. Forums
  2. Beatmaps
  3. Ranked Beatmaps (Archived)

remixed by DJ TOTTO - The 4th KAC DJ TOTTO's SELECTION [OsuM

posted
Total Posts
61
show more
Rivals_7
Beatmap Nominator
2,978 posts
Joined July 2014
Topic Starter
Rivals_7

Protastic101 wrote:

whew, sorry for graving the map lol. Anyways, recheck

winter solstice
00:10:825 - Could do some SVs here too tbh since the sound has a very quick cut off. something like this could be 10/10
  1. 00:10:825 - 00:11:145 - 1.68x (1.75x base)
  2. 00:10:905 - 00:11:224 - 0.72x (0.75x base)
  3. 00:11:464 - 2.88x (3x base)
  4. 00:11:544 - 0.58x (0.6x base)
  5. 00:11:942 - 0.96x normal sv
00:44:501 - Could do a bump sv here like 2.2x to 0.6x since there's a bit of a sudden stop to the sound
00:47:167 - ^

00:46:084 (46084|2,46167|1) - I would consider control H with this to keep the strain a bit more even since the right hand already has a 3 note stack in 4 while also just finishing the 1/6 roll

01:17:582 - Would be cool to have an LN or something here for the building down sound or whatever, like this https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/8089706 >>with my current svs right now , i think its kinda awkward to hit. Would like to keep this xd<<

01:37:174 - imo, would be cool to have a long bump sv here for the sound that transitions between the bridge to the last kiai. Something like this could work
  1. 01:37:174 - 0.55x (0.6x base)
  2. 01:37:710 - 3.5x (3.8x base)
Special
ok


Hard
00:40:668 (40668|3,40668|0) - for the sake of playability, I would suggest ignoring the crash at 00:40:668 - and just adding a note in 00:40:724 - so that it's a straight 1/3 roll, like so https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/8089880 >>the thing is 00:40:724 there is no piano i could hear of. And even would be conflicted with other diff and might lead to dq able issues <<


Medium
01:25:541 - to represent the repetitive sound in the music, I might consider using ministacks to represent it as the hand movement would be different from the previous few measures. so like this https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/8089964 >>applying it a lil bit differently<<

Basic
00:29:502 (29502|3,29835|0) - tbh, I think using 1/2 here would be better since it's more reflective of the music and isn't really that hard since it's only a simple 4 note burst https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/8089989 >>hmm dunno. I prefer to cover the lead noise tho. For layering variety.<<
Replying on phone lol kinda afraid to open le browser. Will notice you when updated

My reply is on">><<". Thx xd

Edit: updated
Protastic101
Elite Nominator
1,160 posts
Joined July 2015
Protastic101
alrighty, cool then. Here's a rebub.

24 hour rule reminder too
Rivals_7
Beatmap Nominator
2,978 posts
Joined July 2014
Topic Starter
Rivals_7
Critical_Star
Beatmap Nominator
1,210 posts
Joined December 2013
Critical_Star
before qualify

WINTER SOLSTICE
01:37:710 - i believe this sv is a mistake?

EDIT: fixed timing point
Last edited by Critical_Star , edited 1 time in total.
Rivals_7
Beatmap Nominator
2,978 posts
Joined July 2014
Topic Starter
Rivals_7
Uh its a bump svs that protastic suggested but it is placed at 01:37:710 .

There's no sv on 01:37:703 anyway
Critical_Star
Beatmap Nominator
1,210 posts
Joined December 2013
Critical_Star
okay
Rivals_7
Beatmap Nominator
2,978 posts
Joined July 2014
Topic Starter
Rivals_7
Thx a lot CS :D
Maxus
Nomination Assessment Team
1,238 posts
Joined May 2014
Maxus
So, first of all, congrats for the qualify, but i have a bit of concern with the map that i really feel need to be addressed regarding the SV.

01:37:710 - I'm pretty sure you already know that no player in this skill spectrum can handle that 3,5x SV in 1/4 snap, it's just simply really unreasonable for me to seeing that SV just hit you like a truck with all that dense jumptrill pattern at the end. The replay i'm seeing here also shows that even top player unable to hit that either way, the reasonable SV would be if you put 01:37:174 - 0,80x here, and 01:37:710 - 1,60x SV, , it will balancing out the SV by a lot.

01:38:775 - This is also really rough with the 0,25x and gradual increasing at every 0,50x which is too fast for something that comes from dense pattern, I don't know why it's necessary to do that when in actually, you can just do:

01:38:775 - 0,50x
01:38:857 - 0,75x
01:38:939 - 1,00x
01:39:022 - 1,25x

This still give big impact to the effect of music instrument while still retain playability of the last pattern, this is much more fair because the gradual increase actually gives player more room to react and anticipate dense pattern. for this, you may also apply to other similar SV , and for Special diff as well.

Generally the most problematics are these 2 SV based on my playing experience and leaderboard records, there's still some other places where it can be improved, but want to see your reasoning for this first. Looking forward for your responses!
Surono
7,195 posts
Joined November 2013
Surono
gorenk temphe paleng enak diwolak walek..... gawe anax palenk enak diwola-
suwe ora jamu... jamu... godong... telo.. wooo TELO
Rivals_7
Beatmap Nominator
2,978 posts
Joined July 2014
Topic Starter
Rivals_7
#1 nuff said. I kinda didnt think quite forward when i do this since i was wondering if i could do some sv bump here and then protastic pointing it up i think its going to be "yup cool" xd. Anyways your suggestion doesnt give me a "bump" feel so i think 0.6 -> 1.8 would be fit.

#2 in a pinnacle of agree or disagree tbh. Your suggestion of 0.25 distance for each sv doesnt really capture the atmosphere (personally) which has some kind of strong bumpy gimmick.
As for your concern about react to anticipate this dense pattern. I believe most top players could handle them just fine since its just a common jthrill and split jthrill which is generally hard to handle even without sv.

It was also intended for kind of reading challenge. You might cant FC ing this in the first try tho.

Will try to contact qat atm. Thx for the concern!

Edit: apparently raveille manages to FC with bad ratio lol
Last edited by Rivals_7 , edited 1 time in total.
JBHyperion
osu!catch Paragon
3,922 posts
Joined September 2014
JBHyperion
Disqualified upon creator request. Once you've come to an agreement on those SVs, your nominators are free to push the mapset forward again.

Good luck!
Arzenvald
4,033 posts
Joined July 2013
Arzenvald
i am okay with the SV usage though most are a little exaggerated at some part, mostly 00:11:464 (11464|2) - the song is rather calm in the beginning, so consider to reduce it..
also i'd have to agree with maxus, that x0.5 > x3.5 SV is way too exaggerating both the gimmick & readability.. i'd suggest to add some green lines at :
01:37:480 - X0.75 ( making a speed up in this spot will also layers the sfx in the music )
01:37:557 - X1
01:37:633 - X1.25
01:37:710 - replace with X1.5

you got the idea, i wouldn't able to FC most parts if i didn't open the editor before playing xD

got some stars, i like diz /w/
Maxus
Nomination Assessment Team
1,238 posts
Joined May 2014
Maxus
1# 0,6x still felt too slow imo since it's not much different with 0,55x , and it was using 3,5x along with 0,55x so that the calculation outcome will be more or less 1. try 0,75x and 2,00x? the impact already really shown with this SV imo. (ah it seems there's many suggestion, you can try to experiment which fits the music while maintain playability)

2# I understand you want to try capture the strong feeling of music, but imo, you already have quad note and jumptrill to reflect the music drum intensity either way, so imo you don't need to use really strong SV again to capture that, it will give too much sugar on a cup of tea if you use really strong SV in dense pattern, so i hope you reconsider this.

About top player being able to play or FC, personally i look it more of the skill spectrum of the audience player the difficulty is aiming for. Do you really want to serve the difficulty for the top player even if the patterns are generally more for 4* player? i don't think so. in general, you will aim this for 4* player, so the envision of the how much strong the effect will depends on the overall diff it try to present. so once again, i hope this to be reconsidered.

Generally only these that i felt wrong, other sv i think it's alright, but maybe you can ask for more feedback.
Rivals_7
Beatmap Nominator
2,978 posts
Joined July 2014
Topic Starter
Rivals_7

Arzenvald wrote:

i am okay with the SV usage though most are a little exaggerated at some part, mostly 00:11:464 (11464|2) - the song is rather calm in the beginning, so consider to reduce it..
also i'd have to agree with maxus, that x0.5 > x3.5 SV is way too exaggerating both the gimmick & readability.. i'd suggest to add some green lines at :
01:37:480 - X0.75 ( making a speed up in this spot will also layers the sfx in the music )
01:37:557 - X1
01:37:633 - X1.25
01:37:710 - replace with X1.5

you got the idea, i wouldn't able to FC most parts if i didn't open the editor before playing xD

got some stars, i like diz /w/

Maxus wrote:

1# 0,6x still felt too slow imo since it's not much different with 0,55x , and it was using 3,5x along with 0,55x so that the calculation outcome will be more or less 1. try 0,75x and 2,00x? the impact already really shown with this SV imo. (ah it seems there's many suggestion, you can try to experiment which fits the music while maintain playability)

2# I understand you want to try capture the strong feeling of music, but imo, you already have quad note and jumptrill to reflect the music drum intensity either way, so imo you don't need to use really strong SV again to capture that, it will give too much sugar on a cup of tea if you use really strong SV in dense pattern, so i hope you reconsider this.

About top player being able to play or FC, personally i look it more of the skill spectrum of the audience player the difficulty is aiming for. Do you really want to serve the difficulty for the top player even if the patterns are generally more for 4* player? i don't think so. in general, you will aim this for 4* player, so the envision of the how much strong the effect will depends on the overall diff it try to present. so once again, i hope this to be reconsidered.

i dont really aim this for generic 4* players. that would be outright bland idea to implement. also the reason why is this has HP OD 8,5 making it not your usual 4* diff to pass easily (considering its the last diff, should be generally harder rite xd). if they dont pass WINTER SOLSTICE, there's still SPECIAL to pass (and its already close to 4* eh). I aim this mapset for wider audience from the lowest to highest ranked player (hopefully).

Generally only these that i felt wrong, other sv i think it's alright, but maybe you can ask for more feedback.
updated with arzenvald's suggestion on bump SVs and reduced SVs on 00:11:464 (11464|2) to 1,68 -> 0,72 (also thx for star mz o/)
also removed the SVs on the last kiai on SPECIAL for playability and diff curve purpose

will try to get feedback before i ask nominator to get this back on qualified. Thx :>
Maxus
Nomination Assessment Team
1,238 posts
Joined May 2014
Maxus
Ah i see, so it's implemented for "highest ranked" player, ok then!
Good luck.

Hoping you would reply my second point though, it seems remain unanswered.
Virtue-
Beatmap Nominator
1,112 posts
Joined March 2015
Virtue-
more SVs please, thx
Rivals_7
Beatmap Nominator
2,978 posts
Joined July 2014
Topic Starter
Rivals_7
added some SVs and some more greenline to smoothen the first SVs and before-last-kiai SVs

time to go again (?)
Protastic101
Elite Nominator
1,160 posts
Joined July 2015
Protastic101
irc with some talk about the SVs real quick
2017-05-23 21:43 Protastic101: ok
2017-05-23 21:43 Protastic101: rip me lol
2017-05-23 21:43 Protastic101: ACTION is editing [https://osu.ppy.sh/b/1130164 remixed by DJ TOTTO - The 4th KAC DJ TOTTO's SELECTION [WINTER SOLSTICE]]
2017-05-23 21:43 Protastic101: 01:37:174 -
2017-05-23 21:44 Protastic101: SV sequence here averages 0.86x
2017-05-23 21:44 Protastic101: so uhhh
2017-05-23 21:45 Rivals_7: so reduce that or whta? xd
2017-05-23 21:45 Rivals_7: the first SV i mean
2017-05-23 21:45 Protastic101: idk, Im thinking
2017-05-23 21:46 Protastic101: cause currently, everything adds to 6.9, so you need to somehow add an extra 1.1 somewhere to get 8
2017-05-23 21:47 Protastic101: 01:37:174 - you could just do generic 0.4x, 0.8x, 1.2x, 1.6x speed up instead at 01:37:174 - 01:37:327 - 01:37:480 - 01:37:633 - respectively
2017-05-23 21:48 Protastic101: someday I'll figure out how to do others like that, but not today cuz im dumb
2017-05-23 21:48 Protastic101: let's see, what else
2017-05-23 21:49 Rivals_7: okay wait lemme do that first
2017-05-23 21:49 Protastic101: you just gonna do that?
2017-05-23 21:50 Rivals_7: oh emm doesnt sounds fit. i cant read that properly because speedup xd
2017-05-23 21:51 Rivals_7: lemme find out other way
2017-05-23 21:52 Protastic101: you could just do a generic bump, like 0.6x at 01:37:174 - , then 01:37:633 - 2.2x here to average to 1x
2017-05-23 21:54 Rivals_7: i was thinking up to smoothing it rather than a bump becuase that was maxus was concerned for
2017-05-23 21:54 Protastic101: ah yeah
2017-05-23 21:54 Protastic101: that's the thing I struggle with is figuring out a gradual SV change that isn't too sudden
2017-05-23 21:54 Protastic101: D:
2017-05-23 21:55 Rivals_7: rrrr math
2017-05-23 21:58 Protastic101: I'm stumped
2017-05-23 21:58 Protastic101: I really don't know how you could smooth out the SVs in a way with even intervals D:
2017-05-23 21:59 Rivals_7: so - 01:37:174 - i use 0,5 and then i change the gradual speedup at - 01:37:480 - to 1 -> 1,25 -> 1,5 -> 1,75
2017-05-23 21:59 Rivals_7: is that good enough xd
2017-05-23 22:00 Protastic101: that makes 7.5/8 which means the average is still 0.94x
2017-05-23 22:00 Protastic101: but wait
2017-05-23 22:00 Rivals_7: its quite close to 1 so uhh
2017-05-23 22:01 Protastic101: if you make the 0.5 at 01:37:174 - 0.63x instead, it'll average out
2017-05-23 22:01 Rivals_7: oh do i need to average the other by x0,92?
2017-05-23 22:02 Rivals_7: the gradual speedup svs
2017-05-23 22:03 Protastic101: uh
2017-05-23 22:03 Protastic101: which ones you mean? The ones like at 01:38:775 - ?
2017-05-23 22:03 Rivals_7: uh no. i mean at - 01:37:480 - the base is still 0,92 right?
2017-05-23 22:04 Protastic101: well no. I'm taking 01:37:174 - to 01:37:786 - as an entire sequence
2017-05-23 22:04 Rivals_7: ah
2017-05-23 22:05 Rivals_7: so 1 -> 1,25 thing is good?
2017-05-23 22:05 Protastic101: so basically, 01:37:174 - to 01:37:480 - is the 0.63x SV, then 01:37:480 - is 1, 01:37:557 - 1.25, -01:37:633 - 1.5, 01:37:710 - 1.75
2017-05-23 22:05 Protastic101: Yeah because (0.63 x 4) + 1 + 1.25 + 1.5 + 1.75 = very close to 8 which is the total number of units
2017-05-23 22:06 Rivals_7: :o
2017-05-23 22:07 Protastic101: oh my god, I am so stupid
2017-05-23 22:07 Protastic101: yes, you need to multiply all those values by 0.92x because it's still within the 196 bpm section
2017-05-23 22:08 Rivals_7: lel
2017-05-23 22:08 Rivals_7: oke then xD
2017-05-23 22:08 Protastic101: Im so sorry lol
2017-05-23 22:08 Rivals_7: its understandable. judging by your time right now xd
2017-05-23 22:09 Protastic101: lol, it's not even that late, im just ded
2017-05-23 22:09 Protastic101: 01:16:511 - ok, regarding the SVs here
2017-05-23 22:10 Protastic101: 01:16:587 - 01:16:893 - 01:17:199 - these should be 0.77x instead since the base SV is 1.5 (1.38 when affected by the normalizing one)
2017-05-23 22:11 Protastic101: four units total between each note, so (4 - 1.5) / 3 = 0.83, then multiply by the normalizing SV, 0.92x to get 0.77x
2017-05-23 22:12 Protastic101: that should also be changed for the special diff too
2017-05-23 22:13 Rivals_7: hm its kinda close to the normalizing sv
2017-05-23 22:14 Protastic101: 00:10:905 - 00:11:224 - should be 0.72x because math (pls no ask for work, too lazy to show)
2017-05-23 22:14 Rivals_7: could it be a little bit slower
2017-05-23 22:14 Protastic101: you could increase the strength of the first sv?
2017-05-23 22:14 Rivals_7: the 1,38?
2017-05-23 22:14 Protastic101: yeah
2017-05-23 22:15 Protastic101: that'd change the second SV and make it smaller if you increased the first one
2017-05-23 22:15 Protastic101: like uhm, say you use 1.9x as the base instead
2017-05-23 22:15 Protastic101: then it'd become 01:16:511 - 01:16:817 - 01:17:123 - 1.75x
2017-05-23 22:16 Protastic101: 01:16:587 - 01:16:893 - 01:17:199 - 0.64x
2017-05-23 22:18 Protastic101: ask me if you want work, too lazy to write it out since you understand the process already
2017-05-23 22:18 Rivals_7: hmm okey. btw how do you think about this section - 01:17:429 (77429|3,77429|2,77429|1) -
2017-05-23 22:18 Rivals_7: svs
2017-05-23 22:19 Protastic101: oh, assuming you make 01:17:429 - 1.75x (1.9x base), then 01:17:506 - is just 0.09x SV, which is unrankable. So uh, keep the current 1.38x and 0.46x cause it works well for it and averages to 1x
2017-05-23 22:21 Rivals_7: hmm oke then back xd
2017-05-23 22:21 Rivals_7: (i'm too dumb for this :u)
2017-05-23 22:22 Protastic101: 01:17:735 - here and 01:17:812 - i gotta ask that you flip the SVs though, cause the next sequence's starting SV should be greater than 1 if the previous sequence's SV was greater than 1. Basically, dont put a bump and reverse bump back to back
2017-05-23 22:24 Rivals_7: hmmm looks weird rrrrr
2017-05-23 22:24 Rivals_7: i think i just do 0,92 on that
2017-05-23 22:24 Protastic101: actually, what's the base SV for the 0.69 answer? Cause when I multiply by the reciprocal, it gets me .738
2017-05-23 22:24 Rivals_7: no bump
2017-05-23 22:24 Protastic101: ok
2017-05-23 22:25 Rivals_7: ok done
2017-05-23 22:25 Protastic101: did you fix the SVs at 01:16:511 - in the special diff too?
2017-05-23 22:26 Rivals_7: yeah
2017-05-23 22:27 Protastic101: k, that's all my complaints then
2017-05-23 22:27 Protastic101: update and Ill rebub
2017-05-23 22:29 Rivals_7: btw i change something at 01:46:604 (106604|3,106604|2) -
2017-05-23 22:29 Rivals_7: how do you think?
2017-05-23 22:29 Rivals_7: in winter
2017-05-23 22:30 Rivals_7: o ye btw already updated
2017-05-23 22:31 Protastic101: I dont notice a difference lol
2017-05-23 22:31 Protastic101: seems cool to me
2017-05-23 22:31 Rivals_7: ah ok lmao so yea hopefully thats all
2017-05-23 22:33 Protastic101: 00:10:905 - and 00:11:224 - o, u never responded to this lol. I said the SV should be 0.72x cause averages
2017-05-23 22:33 Rivals_7: o fug
2017-05-23 22:34 Rivals_7: but uh 0,72 sounds too close to normalize :u
2017-05-23 22:34 Protastic101: but then that means i have to suggest a different starting SV to make the difference more noticeable
2017-05-23 22:34 Protastic101: aaaa
2017-05-23 22:34 Protastic101: ACTION aaaas away
2017-05-23 22:35 Rivals_7: o o wait thats
2017-05-23 22:35 Rivals_7: okay i guess
2017-05-23 22:35 Protastic101: tfw am sad potato
2017-05-23 22:35 Rivals_7: same tbh
2017-05-23 22:36 Rivals_7: reupdated
2017-05-23 22:36 Protastic101: ok
2017-05-23 22:37 Protastic101: cool stuff then
Critical_Star
Beatmap Nominator
1,210 posts
Joined December 2013
Critical_Star
sv issues have been addressed, good to go now
Rivals_7
Beatmap Nominator
2,978 posts
Joined July 2014
Topic Starter
Rivals_7
thx a lot guys :D
Evening
2,464 posts
Joined December 2012
Evening
01:16:511 (76511|2) - where do you even get the SV values here from, it looks very inconsistent with most of the SVs done previously since they usually average to the default speed of the player

edit: to clarify, i don't point to anything that is meant to be a teleport sv
Protastic101
Elite Nominator
1,160 posts
Joined July 2015
Protastic101

Evening wrote:

01:16:511 (76511|2) - where do you even get the SV values here from, it looks very inconsistent with most of the SVs done previously since they usually average to the default speed of the player

edit: to clarify, i don't point to anything that is meant to be a teleport sv
I just checked and you're right in that the value is wrong. The values at 01:16:587 - 01:16:893 - and 01:17:199 - should be 0.77x instead of 0.46x which would have been the value if Rivals was using the half half method and putting the SVs at 01:16:664 - 01:16:970 - 01:17:276 - instead. My mistake for failing to catch that. As a result, the average SV of that section is 0.75x which is a slowjam and makes it harder to sight read. Idk what Rivals wants to do about it though, but a quick DQ to fix it would be fine.
Blocko
osu! Alumni
742 posts
Joined February 2014
Blocko
Disqualified upon creator's request.
Rivals_7
Beatmap Nominator
2,978 posts
Joined July 2014
Topic Starter
Rivals_7
decided to move the SV line to - 01:16:664 - 01:16:970 - 01:17:276 - . SV still 0.46x

(looks more natural tho) Updated
Blocko
osu! Alumni
742 posts
Joined February 2014
Blocko
Checked the changes. The SVs around 01:16:511 - average up to the player's normal speed.

Here's your back!
Please sign in to reply.

New reply

0
37 / 61