forum

penoreri - Preserved Valkyria

posted
Total Posts
156
show more
jeanbernard8865
MDRRRRRZ.ELMSFKGIPO.DTIGO.DSFJILV DFJKSPKGV
MBomb
few concerns with gowos diff that i feel need to be addressed

Waterfall of Nine Heavens
-The timing in the beginning is noticeably wrong. While 165bpm does follow the guitar solo somewhat accurately because of many timing sections, it fails to follow the faint (organ?) sound. Even if you are not mapping the organ sound. I believe 180bpm is the correct speed for this song.

00:21:532 (1) - I believe that everything prior to this point was build up for this drop. In that case there is something wrong here. 00:20:365 (1,2,1,2) - The difficulty change here is significant to 00:19:712 (1,2) . I agree with this sudden difficulty spike because it follows the song intensity. However, the section afterwards fails to followup with the difficulty change. Since everything prior to this point was buildup, this section should have the same, if not higher difficulty than the buildup. An example would be: 00:23:032 (1,2,3,4,5) - I believe this pattern should be more spaced

00:31:031 (3) - The guitar comes in with its wonky melody at THIS point, not 00:30:865 (1) . But the way you put NC and arranged your pattern makes it seem like it's at 00:30:865 (1) . I think you should move NC to 00:31:031 (3) and maybe stack 00:30:865 (1,2,3) to better distinguish the melody change.

00:34:698 (1) - Just because sliders 1 and 2 look similar doesn’t make it okay to inconsistently put NC. I would argue that NC should be here 00:35:032 (2) . There are more inconsistency in your New Combos such as 00:35:865 (1,2,3) and 00:39:031 (5) , but pointing every single one of them out is a pain to do, I will leave that task to you. Generally NC is at the big white tick and whenever there is big difficulty spike.

01:03:698 (4,5,6,7,1,2,3,4) - The drums are pretty much consistent, other than the fact that at 01:04:032 (1) the pitch drops. There is no clear reason for this sudden change in DS inconsistency in your stream. If you want to emphasize that the pitch drops at 01:04:032 (1) , try another pattern.

01:05:532 (1,2) - Your slider-heads are on clap sounds and slider-ends are on guitar melody, I don't like this since the players aren't tapping to the melody. I believe clap sounds are secondary, and they can even be neglected (sometimes) to emphasize melody. Don't you feel something missing at 01:05:865 (2) , there is a cool guitar sound and the players aren't tapping on it. Basically, mapping to the rhythm is fine and all, as long as your map emphasizes the melody the most, if that makes sense.

01:06:698 (1,2,3,4) - Same problem that I had with 01:03:698 (4,5,6,7,1,2,3,4) .

01:13:615 (4,1,2,3) and 01:14:615 (4,1,2,3) - follow similar rhythm, and you should move 01:14:615 (4,1) farther away from 01:14:198 (3) . Like how you spaced 01:13:365 (3,4,1) .

Kiai Time: There isn’t a stable flow that my mouse can follow, so gameplay feels a little choppy. It isn’t very visually appealing either. Distance between objects doesn’t really follow the intensity of the song at certain times. I will point out a few of these problems.

01:18:032 (2) - You’ve been using simple slider shapes like straight and curve, and this sudden change here doesn’t really make sense. The long guitar sound isn’t that intense to begin with, and you ended it on the wrong beat.

01:21:032 (3,4,5) - I don’t see how 5 deserves such a big jump, and I don’t understand why 01:21:532 is not mapped. There is a clap sound at 5 yes, but every other 2 bars has one. 01:20:698 (2) has a clap, and 01:20:865 is mapped correct? Same rule applies here then. You can’t just add your own hitsounds to a map and map those hitsounds as if they were part of the song.

01:26:365 (2,3,1,2,3,4,1) - You ignored the guitar here and focused the drums, but you focused the guitar here 01:24:865 (1,2,3,4) and ignored the drums. Pick which instrument to focus on and stick with it. Also this 01:26:698 (1,2,3,4,1) is too spaced, the drums are dropping in pitch, and is not intensifying, which means that this difficulty spike is contradicting the song.

This next part is just copy pasted so im gonna skip~

For this section 02:53:698 (1,2,3,4,5) can you use 2 combo colors? I know you're trying to make it look cool but it's really hard to play those 02:53:698 (1,2,3,4,5) when they stack. Maybe use white and a shade of grey to compliment the storyboard.

I can't really pass the slider deathstream haha, rhythm kinda hard to follow but that's probably intended so not gonna say anything.

03:28:615 (3) - Please don’t use 5% for any slider ends it’s confusing as fuck

04:10:198 (2,1) - fix the parallel part please

05:08:698 - this timing point is unnecessary. Not all songs end the last note on a big white tick anyways
And that's all! If you have questions about my mods don't hesitate to pm me on forum or in game. Good luck with your map

i actually dont have a clue
blobdash
bɘꙅꙅɘɿbbɒ ɘd oƚ bɘɘᴎ |ɘɘᎸ i ƚɒʜƚ ᎸᎸib ꙅowoǫ ʜƚiw ꙅᴎɿɘɔᴎoɔ wɘᎸ

ꙅᴎɘvɒɘH ɘᴎiͶ Ꮈo ||ɒᎸɿɘƚɒW
.ǫᴎoꙅ ꙅiʜƚ ɿoᎸ bɘɘqꙅ ƚɔɘɿɿoɔ ɘʜƚ ꙅi mqd08 ɘvɘi|ɘd I .bᴎuoꙅ ᴎɒǫɿo ɘʜƚ ǫᴎiqqɒm ƚoᴎ ɘɿɒ uoʏ Ꮈi ᴎɘvƎ .bᴎuoꙅ (⸮ᴎɒǫɿo) ƚᴎiɒᎸ ɘʜƚ wo||oᎸ oƚ ꙅ|iɒᎸ ƚi ,ꙅᴎoiƚɔɘꙅ ǫᴎimiƚ ʏᴎɒm Ꮈo ɘꙅuɒɔɘd ʏ|ɘƚɒɿuɔɔɒ ƚɒʜwɘmoꙅ o|oꙅ ɿɒƚiuǫ ɘʜƚ wo||oᎸ ꙅɘob mqd ɘ|iʜW .ǫᴎoɿw ʏ|dɒɘɔiƚoᴎ ꙅi ǫᴎiᴎᴎiǫɘd ɘʜƚ ᴎi ǫᴎimiƚ ɘʜT-

bɘɔɒqꙅ ɘɿom ɘd b|uoʜꙅ ᴎɿɘƚƚɒq ꙅiʜƚ ɘvɘi|ɘd I - (,,,,) 0::00 :ɘd b|uow ɘ|qmɒxɘ ᴎA .qub|iud ɘʜƚ ᴎɒʜƚ ʏƚ|uɔiᎸᎸib ɿɘʜǫiʜ ƚoᴎ Ꮈi ,ɘmɒꙅ ɘʜƚ ɘvɒʜ b|uoʜꙅ ᴎoiƚɔɘꙅ ꙅiʜƚ ,qub|iud ꙅɒw ƚᴎioq ꙅiʜƚ oƚ ɿoiɿq ǫᴎiʜƚʏɿɘvɘ ɘɔᴎiꙄ .ɘǫᴎɒʜɔ ʏƚ|uɔiᎸᎸib ɘʜƚ ʜƚiw quwo||oᎸ oƚ ꙅ|iɒᎸ ꙅbɿɒwɿɘƚᎸɒ ᴎoiƚɔɘꙅ ɘʜƚ ,ɿɘvɘwoH .ʏƚiꙅᴎɘƚᴎi ǫᴎoꙅ ɘʜƚ ꙅwo||oᎸ ƚi ɘꙅuɒɔɘd ɘʞiqꙅ ʏƚ|uɔiᎸᎸib ᴎɘbbuꙅ ꙅiʜƚ ʜƚiw ɘɘɿǫɒ I . (,) :9:00 oƚ ƚᴎɒɔiᎸiᴎǫiꙅ ꙅi ɘɿɘʜ ɘǫᴎɒʜɔ ʏƚ|uɔiᎸᎸib ɘʜT - (,,,) :0:00 .ɘɿɘʜ ǫᴎoɿw ǫᴎiʜƚɘmoꙅ ꙅi ɘɿɘʜƚ ɘꙅɒɔ ƚɒʜƚ ᴎI .qoɿb ꙅiʜƚ ɿoᎸ qu b|iud ꙅɒw ƚᴎioq ꙅiʜƚ oƚ ɿoiɿq ǫᴎiʜƚʏɿɘvɘ ƚɒʜƚ ɘvɘi|ɘd I - () ::00

.ɘǫᴎɒʜɔ ʏbo|ɘm ɘʜƚ ʜꙅiuǫᴎiƚꙅib ɿɘƚƚɘd oƚ (,,) 8:0:00 ʞɔɒƚꙅ ɘdʏɒm bᴎɒ () 0::00 oƚ ƆͶ ɘvom b|uoʜꙅ uoʏ ʞᴎiʜƚ I . () 8:0:00 ƚɒ ꙅ'ƚi ɘʞi| mɘɘꙅ ƚi ꙅɘʞɒm ᴎɿɘƚƚɒq ɿuoʏ bɘǫᴎɒɿɿɒ bᴎɒ ƆͶ ƚuq uoʏ ʏɒw ɘʜƚ ƚuᙠ . () 8:0:00 ƚoᴎ ,ƚᴎioq ꙄIHT ƚɒ ʏbo|ɘm ʏʞᴎow ꙅƚi ʜƚiw ᴎi ꙅɘmoɔ ɿɒƚiuǫ ɘʜT - () 0::00

.ɘʞiqꙅ ʏƚ|uɔiᎸᎸib ǫid ꙅi ɘɿɘʜƚ ɿɘvɘᴎɘʜw bᴎɒ ʞɔiƚ ɘƚiʜw ǫid ɘʜƚ ƚɒ ꙅi ƆͶ ʏ||ɒɿɘᴎɘᎮ .uoʏ oƚ ʞꙅɒƚ ƚɒʜƚ ɘvɒɘ| ||iw I ,ob oƚ ᴎiɒq ɒ ꙅi ƚuo mɘʜƚ Ꮈo ɘᴎo ɘ|ǫᴎiꙅ ʏɿɘvɘ ǫᴎiƚᴎioq ƚud , () 0:9:00 bᴎɒ (,,) 8::00 ꙅɒ ʜɔuꙅ ꙅodmoƆ wɘͶ ɿuoʏ ᴎi ʏɔᴎɘƚꙅiꙅᴎoɔᴎi ɘɿom ɘɿɒ ɘɿɘʜT . () 0::00 ɘɿɘʜ ɘd b|uoʜꙅ ƆͶ ƚɒʜƚ ɘuǫɿɒ b|uow I .ƆͶ ƚuq ʏ|ƚᴎɘƚꙅiꙅᴎoɔᴎi oƚ ʏɒʞo ƚi ɘʞɒm ƚ’ᴎꙅɘob ɿɒ|imiꙅ ʞoo| bᴎɒ ꙅɿɘbi|ꙅ ɘꙅuɒɔɘd ƚꙅuႱ - () 89::00

.ᴎɿɘƚƚɒq ɿɘʜƚoᴎɒ ʏɿƚ , () 0:0:0 ƚɒ ꙅqoɿb ʜɔƚiq ɘʜƚ ƚɒʜƚ ɘƹiꙅɒʜqmɘ oƚ ƚᴎɒw uoʏ ᎸI .mɒɘɿƚꙅ ɿuoʏ ᴎi ʏɔᴎɘƚꙅiꙅᴎoɔᴎi Ꙅᗡ ᴎi ɘǫᴎɒʜɔ ᴎɘbbuꙅ ꙅiʜƚ ɿoᎸ ᴎoꙅɒɘɿ ɿɒɘ|ɔ oᴎ ꙅi ɘɿɘʜT .ꙅqoɿb ʜɔƚiq ɘʜƚ () 0:0:0 ƚɒ ƚɒʜƚ ƚɔɒᎸ ɘʜƚ ᴎɒʜƚ ɿɘʜƚo ,ƚᴎɘƚꙅiꙅᴎoɔ ʜɔum ʏƚƚɘɿq ɘɿɒ ꙅmuɿb ɘʜT - (,,,,,,,) 89:0:0

.ɘꙅᴎɘꙅ ꙅɘʞɒm ƚɒʜƚ Ꮈi ,ƚꙅom ɘʜƚ ʏbo|ɘm ɘʜƚ ꙅɘƹiꙅɒʜqmɘ qɒm ɿuoʏ ꙅɒ ǫᴎo| ꙅɒ ,||ɒ bᴎɒ ɘᴎiᎸ ꙅi mʜƚʏʜɿ ɘʜƚ oƚ ǫᴎiqqɒm ,ʏ||ɒɔiꙅɒᙠ .ƚi ᴎo ǫᴎiqqɒƚ ƚ'ᴎɘɿɒ ꙅɿɘʏɒ|q ɘʜƚ bᴎɒ bᴎuoꙅ ɿɒƚiuǫ |ooɔ ɒ ꙅi ɘɿɘʜƚ , () 8:0:0 ƚɒ ǫᴎiꙅꙅim ǫᴎiʜƚɘmoꙅ |ɘɘᎸ uoʏ ƚ'ᴎoᗡ .ʏbo|ɘm ɘƹiꙅɒʜqmɘ oƚ (ꙅɘmiƚɘmoꙅ) bɘƚɔɘ|ǫɘᴎ ɘd ᴎɘvɘ ᴎɒɔ ʏɘʜƚ bᴎɒ ,ʏɿɒbᴎoɔɘꙅ ɘɿɒ ꙅbᴎuoꙅ qɒ|ɔ ɘvɘi|ɘd I .ʏbo|ɘm ɘʜƚ oƚ ǫᴎiqqɒƚ ƚ'ᴎɘɿɒ ꙅɿɘʏɒ|q ɘʜƚ ɘɔᴎiꙅ ꙅiʜƚ ɘʞi| ƚ'ᴎob I ,ʏbo|ɘm ɿɒƚiuǫ ᴎo ɘɿɒ ꙅbᴎɘ-ɿɘbi|ꙅ bᴎɒ ꙅbᴎuoꙅ qɒ|ɔ ᴎo ɘɿɒ ꙅbɒɘʜ-ɿɘbi|ꙅ ɿuoY - (,) :0:0

. (,,,,,,,) 89:0:0 ʜƚiw bɒʜ I ƚɒʜƚ mɘ|doɿq ɘmɒꙄ - (,,,) 89:0:0

. (,,) ::0 bɘɔɒqꙅ uoʏ woʜ ɘʞi⅃ . () 89::0 moɿᎸ ʏɒwɒ ɿɘʜƚɿɒᎸ (,) ::0 ɘvom b|uoʜꙅ uoʏ bᴎɒ ,mʜƚʏʜɿ ɿɒ|imiꙅ wo||oᎸ - (,,,) ::0 bᴎɒ (,,,) ::0

.ꙅmɘ|doɿq ɘꙅɘʜƚ Ꮈo wɘᎸ ɒ ƚuo ƚᴎioq ||iw I .ꙅɘmiƚ ᴎiɒƚɿɘɔ ƚɒ ǫᴎoꙅ ɘʜƚ Ꮈo ʏƚiꙅᴎɘƚᴎi ɘʜƚ wo||oᎸ ʏ||ɒɘɿ ƚ’ᴎꙅɘob ꙅƚɔɘꞁdo ᴎɘɘwƚɘd ɘɔᴎɒƚꙅiᗡ .ɿɘʜƚiɘ ǫᴎi|ɒɘqqɒ ʏ||ɒuꙅiv ʏɿɘv ƚ’ᴎꙅi ƚI .ʏqqoʜɔ ɘ|ƚƚi| ɒ ꙅ|ɘɘᎸ ʏɒ|qɘmɒǫ oꙅ ,wo||oᎸ ᴎɒɔ ɘꙅuom ʏm ƚɒʜƚ wo|Ꮈ ɘ|dɒƚꙅ ɒ ƚ’ᴎꙅi ɘɿɘʜT :ɘmiT iɒi⋊

.ƚɒɘd ǫᴎoɿw ɘʜƚ ᴎo ƚi bɘbᴎɘ uoʏ bᴎɒ ,ʜƚiw ᴎiǫɘd oƚ ɘꙅᴎɘƚᴎi ƚɒʜƚ ƚ’ᴎꙅi bᴎuoꙅ ɿɒƚiuǫ ǫᴎo| ɘʜT .ɘꙅᴎɘꙅ ɘʞɒm ʏ||ɒɘɿ ƚ’ᴎꙅɘob ɘɿɘʜ ɘǫᴎɒʜɔ ᴎɘbbuꙅ ꙅiʜƚ bᴎɒ ,ɘvɿuɔ bᴎɒ ƚʜǫiɒɿƚꙅ ɘʞi| ꙅɘqɒʜꙅ ɿɘbi|ꙅ ɘ|qmiꙅ ǫᴎiꙅu ᴎɘɘd ɘv’uoY - () 0:8:0

.ǫᴎoꙅ ɘʜƚ Ꮈo ƚɿɒq ɘɿɘw ʏɘʜƚ Ꮈi ꙅɒ ꙅbᴎuoꙅƚiʜ ɘꙅoʜƚ qɒm bᴎɒ qɒm ɒ oƚ ꙅbᴎuoꙅƚiʜ ᴎwo ɿuoʏ bbɒ ƚꙅuꞁ ƚ’ᴎɒɔ uoY .ᴎɘʜƚ ɘɿɘʜ ꙅɘi|qqɒ ɘ|uɿ ɘmɒꙄ ⸮ƚɔɘɿɿoɔ bɘqqɒm ꙅi 8:0:0 bᴎɒ ,qɒ|ɔ ɒ ꙅɒʜ () 89:0:0 .ɘᴎo ꙅɒʜ ꙅɿɒd ɿɘʜƚo ʏɿɘvɘ ƚud ,ꙅɘʏ ƚɒ bᴎuoꙅ qɒ|ɔ ɒ ꙅi ɘɿɘʜT .bɘqqɒm ƚoᴎ ꙅi ::0 ʏʜw bᴎɒƚꙅɿɘbᴎu ƚ’ᴎob I bᴎɒ ,qmuꞁ ǫid ɒ ʜɔuꙅ ꙅɘvɿɘꙅɘb woʜ ɘɘꙅ ƚ’ᴎob I - (,,) 0::0

.ǫᴎoꙅ ɘʜƚ ǫᴎiƚɔibɒɿƚᴎoɔ ꙅi ɘʞiqꙅ ʏƚ|uɔiᎸᎸib ꙅiʜƚ ƚɒʜƚ ꙅᴎɒɘm ʜɔiʜw ,ǫᴎiʏᎸiꙅᴎɘƚᴎi ƚoᴎ ꙅi bᴎɒ ,ʜɔƚiq ᴎi ǫᴎiqqoɿb ɘɿɒ ꙅmuɿb ɘʜƚ ,bɘɔɒqꙅ ooƚ ꙅi (,,,,) 89::0 ꙅiʜƚ oꙅ|A .ƚi ʜƚiw ʞɔiƚꙅ bᴎɒ ᴎo ꙅuɔoᎸ oƚ ƚᴎɘmuɿƚꙅᴎi ʜɔiʜw ʞɔiꟼ .ꙅmuɿb ɘʜƚ bɘɿoᴎǫi bᴎɒ (,,,) 8::0 ɘɿɘʜ ɿɒƚiuǫ ɘʜƚ bɘꙅuɔoᎸ uoʏ ƚud ,ꙅmuɿb ɘʜƚ bɘꙅuɔoᎸ bᴎɒ ɘɿɘʜ ɿɒƚiuǫ ɘʜƚ bɘɿoᴎǫi uoY - (,,,,,,) ::0

~qiʞꙅ ɒᴎᴎoǫ mi oꙅ bɘƚꙅɒq ʏqoɔ ƚꙅuꞁ ꙅi ƚɿɒq ƚxɘᴎ ꙅiʜT

.bɿɒodʏɿoƚꙅ ɘʜƚ ƚᴎɘmi|qmoɔ oƚ ʏɘɿǫ Ꮈo ɘbɒʜꙅ ɒ bᴎɒ ɘƚiʜw ɘꙅu ɘdʏɒM .ʞɔɒƚꙅ ʏɘʜƚ ᴎɘʜw (,,,,) 89::0 ɘꙅoʜƚ ʏɒ|q oƚ bɿɒʜ ʏ||ɒɘɿ ꙅ'ƚi ƚud |ooɔ ʞoo| ƚi ɘʞɒm oƚ ǫᴎiʏɿƚ ɘɿ'uoʏ woᴎʞ I ⸮ꙅɿo|oɔ odmoɔ ɘꙅu uoʏ ᴎɒɔ (,,,,) 89::0 ᴎoiƚɔɘꙅ ꙅiʜƚ ɿoꟻ

.ǫᴎiʜƚʏᴎɒ ʏɒꙅ ɒᴎᴎoǫ ƚoᴎ oꙅ bɘbᴎɘƚᴎi ʏ|dɒdoɿq ꙅ'ƚɒʜƚ ƚud wo||oᎸ oƚ bɿɒʜ ɒbᴎiʞ mʜƚʏʜɿ ,ɒʜɒʜ mɒɘɿƚꙅʜƚɒɘb ɿɘbi|ꙅ ɘʜƚ ꙅꙅɒq ʏ||ɒɘɿ ƚ'ᴎɒɔ I

ʞɔuᎸ ꙅɒ ǫᴎiꙅuᎸᴎoɔ ꙅ’ƚi ꙅbᴎɘ ɿɘbi|ꙅ ʏᴎɒ ɿoᎸ % ɘꙅu ƚ’ᴎob ɘꙅɒɘ|ꟼ - () :8:0

ɘꙅɒɘ|q ƚɿɒq |ɘ||ɒɿɒq ɘʜƚ xiᎸ - (,) 89:0:0

ꙅʏɒwʏᴎɒ ʞɔiƚ ɘƚiʜw ǫid ɒ ᴎo ɘƚoᴎ ƚꙅɒ| ɘʜƚ bᴎɘ ꙅǫᴎoꙅ ||ɒ ƚoͶ .ʏɿɒꙅꙅɘɔɘᴎᴎu ꙅi ƚᴎioq ǫᴎimiƚ ꙅiʜƚ - 89:80:0
qɒm ɿuoʏ ʜƚiw ʞɔu| booᎮ .ɘmɒǫ ᴎi ɿo muɿoᎸ ᴎo ɘm mq oƚ ɘƚɒƚiꙅɘʜ ƚ'ᴎob ꙅbom ʏm ƚuodɒ ꙅᴎoiƚꙅɘup ɘvɒʜ uoʏ ᎸI !||ɒ ꙅ'ƚɒʜƚ bᴎA

ɘu|ɔ ɒ ɘvɒʜ ƚᴎob ʏ||ɒuƚɔɒ i
jeanbernard8865
all i wanted was to trigger gowo i did not ask for any of this
blobdash

AyanokoRin wrote:

all i wanted was to trigger gowo i did not ask for any of this
b̶͢͠u͢͝҉t̶̴͜͡ ̵̵̢̢͡i̧͞t̶̀͜͠ ̡̢h̸͟͞҉̴a̢̛͢p̕͘p̵̡ȩ̷̸̛҉n̢̕e̸̛d̶́͠
PoNo
:joy:
Nao Tomori
few concerns with gowos diff that i feel need to be addressed
this map is qualified
Topic Starter
Alheak
pls no more concerns thank
ferret irl

Alheak wrote:

pls no more concerns thank
Greetings,

I have some concerns about gowo's diff. Along with a few other things I believe are to be mistakes. I highly advise to re-check on many of the inconsistent hitsounds on the Extra difficulties.


[General (All difficulties)] It would be an improvement if the Ending Spinner can either gradually decrease in volume or ended with a ~5% mute. The music fades out and keeping the spinner-end to hit at 70% volume is unsettling.

01:49:420 (1) - Missing Clap if the intent was to clap every 1s and 3s for this kiai. The music does provide a clap for the first beat of both phrases that's why.
01:53:784 (1) - ^

I listed some other hitsounds on the INFINITE difficulty, so if you changed any of those, then it'd apply to the rest of the difficulties.

[Goldenwolf]00:09:770 (11) - This slider should still be on 1/2 to match the rest of the previous sliders. The music doesn't change and there's a drum on red-tick and a clickable blue beat.

00:10:157 (1,2,3,4) - The music raises in pitch but with how you treat this spacing assumes the music is going "low-high-low" when in fact, it can gradually get higher in spacing altogether. The placement of the objects is also a bit dubious because there's no correlation between any of the circles - It's possible to make a square or parallelogram using (1,2) as the first side as a means to compile the sounds into one grouping, or space (4) to be higher than (3) because of how the music is being treated here.

00:11:318 (4,7,10) - While it may seem this was intentional, I'd reconsider NC'ing every 3rd beat. My reasoning is that every group of 3 circles has their own DS but when it goes down to (4) and later (7) and (10), they too have their own grouping of specific and lowered DS.

00:13:157 (1) - This NC is completely unnecessary and only adds complications to reading. The DS's are all equal between these three objects 00:13:060 (1,1,1) - so it doesn't give enough of a reason to NC each circle other than something artificial. It would also be wise to give 00:13:060 (1) - a whistle hitsound since it does belong to the grouping of NC's you had. In my recommendation, due to how the music is presenting itself, I would instead focus on trying to gradually space 00:12:770 (2,3,4,1,1,1) - these out because the music moves up the scale and in volume progressively than how you expressed it so suddenly.

00:14:028 (1) - Would it be possible to reposition this circle elsewhere? Currently there are two former weaker beats stacked on top of this same location and with the Finish sound provided, I think there would be enough reason to give this emphasis in a way that involves the player to engage at this moment. By stacking over the two previous objects, it diminishes any emphasis provided in the music and it falls flat very quickly.

00:14:996 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,1) - Here is where I have some of my bigger concerns - the hitsounds. I want to believe that with all the piano involved, there are a plethora of ways to go about whistling any of this entire section but the way you hitsounded this part is incredibly inconsistent. Firstly, when you hitsound this circle 00:14:802 (5) - and this slider 00:15:576 (6) - it implies that every 1's and 3's would be a whistle but you didn't use a whistle on the first circle 00:14:028 (1) -
Then I have to ask myself, why is only the blue-tick circle having a whistle here 00:15:480 (5) - ? How come the red-tick circle can't have a whistle as well? They are part of the same grouping (4,5,6) but only two of them get the whistle sounds. You show it over here as well 00:16:931 (3,4,5) - it being part of the same grouping.
It might be possible to NC 00:15:576 (6) - because of how you paired (6,7) to be part of the same whistle group. A better solution in my opinion is to NC (6) and remove the whistle from (7) but keep the same whistle pattern as the first measure being 1's and 3's. So essentially 00:16:351 (5) - will have a whistle.
00:17:415 (6,7,8,9) - How come only two circles have whistles but not the rest? The music descends beat-by-beat naturally so I find it strange that only half of the beats get attention. The same can be said about 00:17:802 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4) - where (6) is another strong beat, but is the start of the pianos lowering in volume. You separated (6,1) when they actually belong in the same grouping.
00:19:157 (7,8,9,1) - This is a bit off because you group (8,9,1) being the strong whistles but (7) is just hanging around as part of the stream there when it has no attention like the rest.

00:19:447 (1,2,3,4) - How come there are only whistles on 1 and 4 when all four objects are the same strength in piano? If you don't want to hit whistles on all four, then rhythmically, you can whistle on 1 and 3 and that would make more sense than whistling 1 and 4. Also, because there are still beats on reds, I believe these would fit better as sliders (perhaps low SV) just so it can still hit the rhythms. Low SV sliders might help bring good spacing emphasis since they'll be treated more or less as held circles.

00:20:609 (7,8,9,10,11,12,13) - Missing whistles on this half? I get that the volume is decreasing but you can add green lines to change the volumes with the whistles (every circle after 7 can go down in 5% for example). That would be a much stronger approach than ignoring half of the piano hitsounds.

00:23:609 (4,5,6,7,8,9) - I don't really know how to explain this but this looks like a reading problem. Either there's a lack of NC'ing somewhere to help distinguish the multiple rhythm snaps, or the stacking itself is placed in a way that is not intuitive to read at all. You do this well in other sections, probably because unlike the one I highlighted, they don't overlap as much on different snaps as part of the same combo.

00:35:705 (1) - Not a too big of a deal, but the rest of the diffs had this hitsounded as a whistle but you were the only one to use finish so... maybe whistle instead?

00:43:447 (1,2,3,4) - I never understood this and why there's so many snaps and rhythms being ignored here. The music is reaching a climax but you let go too early with these 1/8 drums that aren't actually snapped to 1/8 beats, it seems this was placed purely to add some sort of convoluted sense of contrast that is incredibly unfitting to what's happening in the song. It would be far more beneficial to the song to use the snaps the music provided (either 1/3s for piano or 1/4s for drums) and use some sliders or streams to help build the climax with the music instead of falling short with these incorrectly snapped 1/8 sliders.

00:54:875 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - Not the worst thing here but it's the only inconsistent pattern in this section. It'll be more consistent to have the latter (1,2,3) imitate or copy/flip the former (1,2,3) as being a triangle.

01:01:420 (1) - Missing Finish hitsound on an obvious crash
01:03:602 (3) - ^

01:18:876 (1) - Your pattern/design suggests this circle would follow the previous combo as (7) but the NC makes it awkward to look at. From a rhythmic point of view, (1) doesn't really belong here because you'd be combining two separate measures together when (1) is unique apart from the rest, there's an obvious emphasis to it that it should begin elsewhere or have an increased spacing to accommodate.

01:21:466 (3) - Spacing is extremely low compared to everything else that's happened in this difficulty thus far and it's unnatural and awkward to play this especially when the song is having it's huge build-up moment before the kiai. I'd suggest placing this elsewhere, maybe overlapping on top of 01:20:511 (6) - to keep your structure.

01:26:102 (3) - Hitsound error

01:26:239 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,1,2) - Clap spamming isn't suggested by the music here... I can understand the pattern as a means to show rising intensity but the music still holds claps on 2s and 4s. I don't know, this seems like a poor decision because it doesn't help follow what the song is suggesting. Continuing on, it might be wise to whistle 01:27:193 (1,2,3) - since there are strong pianos attached to them. You even have them grouped under their own combo so it makes sense to apply whistles here.

01:27:602 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - Clap spamming might be suggested here, since the music is more pronounced and so are the instruments, but Finish spamming is a bit over the top lol (since this just suggests clap spamming as part of the music)

01:32:511 (3,4) - Should be repeat slider for consistency with 01:31:966 (1,2) - or it could be three 1/3 circles for the intonation in the song.

01:53:784 (1) - Obvious Finish is missed


[Pono]00:04:931 (1,2,3,4) - All of these should be whistles for the piano. Currently only (2) is whistle'd and it's an off-beat so... That's really strange.

00:48:330 (1,2,3,4,5,1,2) - One issue that I'm finding is that the strong sliders don't get the proper emphasis, but the weaker circles do. As in, the current structure is backwards with what is being properly emphasized. If the spacing would be something similar to or like then it would make a lot more sense with differentiating between the strong beats and the weak beats. Currently, the emphasis is really backwards and feels a bit awkward because of it.

00:52:420 (5,6,7) - Overmapped blue-tick circle and unnecessary kickslider. The music doesn't change from it's 1/2 stuff so, I don't understand why this is here.
01:44:783 (5,6,7) - ^

00:54:330 (4,5) - Kickslider is not needed, (5) is implied that it has more emphasis than (4) when it's actually weaker. The problem is that (4) is stacked over (3) and because of that, they are treated equally when (4) could be stronger - such as spaced further. Even if not spaced elsewhere, it's just that (5) is played much more strongly than (4) but (5) is a weaker beat.
01:46:693 (4) - ^

01:17:648 (3) - There's no blue-piano for the kickslider to be used here, seems slightly overmapped.

01:28:966 (3) - Missed emphasis. The stack makes the slider play too easy and flat, this can be positioned in a much better spot to capture the strength in the music here.

01:54:193 (1) - Not a good whistle (music goes 1,2,3 but you go 1,2,3,1 with the whistles). Probably a hitsounding error, could be easily fixed.
01:55:011 (1) - ^

[INFINITE]00:07:834 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6) - Whistle spam is not very good here because there are different volumes of pianos and messing with too many whistles makes everything feel the same strength when musically they're not. Just whistling the strong white beats would be sufficient.

00:19:447 (1,2) - Should be a kick slider for consistency with 00:19:641 (3,4,5) -. It doesn't make sense to have it extend by two extra circles. (compare to Pono)

00:41:899 (1) - Space higher for the finish could be nice.

00:43:447 (1,2,3,4) - Refer to what I mentioned to Goldenwolf on this same exact part. (At least these aren't 1/8 drums but the main idea still stands).

00:54:330 (8) - I don't think using 1/1 is wise here because there's a strong white tick at the slider-end that could be clicked. It becomes inconsistent with how you treated this 00:52:148 (8,9) -

01:02:648 (4) - It seems like you wanted to keep this repeat slider consistent with 01:01:830 (4) - but the main issue with the former slider is that the Finish hitsound (which is really strong btw) get's completely undermined because you can't click it. Maybe there's a better way to rework the rhythm so that you can click for the Finish. I would suggest changing 01:01:830 (4) - as a circle and 1/2 slider on white so that when you can repeat later, the white-tick slider can be emphasized properly for the finish sound.

01:18:057 (8) - NC for different snap. Also because the combo gets a bit too long for this.

01:22:148 (6,7,8,9) - All of these are finishes and it's strong in the music but the spacing is so incredibly low?? This should all be e m p h a s i z e d. It needs to be strong not weak, the music reached it's climax here.[/b]

01:26:784 (2) - Hitsound error with Finish, music suggests there's no finish here. I want to say these finishes were stylistic but it's a bit inaccurate to the music. I want to say they're just claps with a hi-hat but it's kind of hard to hear with all the instruments being drained together.
01:28:966 (2) - ^

01:36:330 (1) - Missing clap to be consistent with 01:37:420 (1) -

01:38:511 (1,2,3,4) - Lots of rhythms missed, it's so sudden too. It almost looks like something was forgotten to be placed while mapping.

01:50:648 (2) - Reverse slider misses the whistle sound which should be clickable. This section is also quite intense so it would make more sense to have things be more dense along with it too.

01:57:193 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - Could have drum hitsounds to them. This feels really empty hitsounding-wise.

01:58:648 (3,4) - 1/6 double.. this might be problematic. I think it's okay in Pono's diff because it's much harder but for an easier Extra diff, deleting (3) and it should be okay to match the rhythm, or use a slider to hit both. The double will be hard to hit properly, it's almost as if you have to double tap to get both 300s.

Please take into consideration these problems before continuing to rank status, as this could potentially harm the mapset altogether.
Linada

Alheak wrote:

pls no more concerns thank
Ideal
few concerns with gowo's diff:

i dont have any i just want to be in the memes
GoldenWolf

fdsfd wrote:

[General (All difficulties)] It would be an improvement if the Ending Spinner can either gradually decrease in volume or ended with a ~5% mute. The music fades out and keeping the spinner-end to hit at 70% volume is unsettling. spinnerspin sound is irrelevant to gameplay and does not add anything meaningful

01:49:420 (1) - Missing Clap if the intent was to clap every 1s and 3s for this kiai. The music does provide a clap for the first beat of both phrases that's why. I think you need to listen more carefully as there is no snare sound there and generally you'll rarely find a snare sound that starts a section in a song

[Goldenwolf]00:09:770 (11) - This slider should still be on 1/2 to match the rest of the previous sliders. The music doesn't change and there's a drum on red-tick and a clickable blue beat. Because this pattern is about progression, and making the blue tick clickable would take away the emphasis from the next pattern

00:10:157 (1,2,3,4) - The music raises in pitch but with how you treat this spacing assumes the music is going "low-high-low" when in fact, it can gradually get higher in spacing altogether. The placement of the objects is also a bit dubious because there's no correlation between any of the circles - It's possible to make a square or parallelogram using (1,2) as the first side as a means to compile the sounds into one grouping, or space (4) to be higher than (3) because of how the music is being treated here. But I don't need to make everything a perfect geometrical shape, also if I wanted to make the pattern feel like low high low high I wouldn't have increased the spacing on the second part so your assumption is incorrect

00:11:318 (4,7,10) - While it may seem this was intentional, I'd reconsider NC'ing every 3rd beat. My reasoning is that every group of 3 circles has their own DS but when it goes down to (4) and later (7) and (10), they too have their own grouping of specific and lowered DS. But I've said numerous times I don't like NC spamming especially when it isn't necessary

00:13:157 (1) - This NC is completely unnecessary and only adds complications to reading. The DS's are all equal between these three objects 00:13:060 (1,1,1) - so it doesn't give enough of a reason to NC each circle other than something artificial. It would also be wise to give 00:13:060 (1) - a whistle hitsound since it does belong to the grouping of NC's you had. In my recommendation, due to how the music is presenting itself, I would instead focus on trying to gradually space 00:12:770 (2,3,4,1,1,1) - these out because the music moves up the scale and in volume progressively than how you expressed it so suddenly. so while I don't like NC spamming, if I do find a reason I like enough I don't really have a problem with it, here it's about how loud that note compared to the ones around, the last one is a chord so it gets its own nc too, spacing reflect all of that too (the first nc is to avoid an awkward lone blue tick nc)

00:14:028 (1) - Would it be possible to reposition this circle elsewhere? Currently there are two former weaker beats stacked on top of this same location and with the Finish sound provided, I think there would be enough reason to give this emphasis in a way that involves the player to engage at this moment. By stacking over the two previous objects, it diminishes any emphasis provided in the music and it falls flat very quickly. no because I find spacing away 1/1 gaps while the previous was a stack to be obnoxious and uncomfortable

00:14:996 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,1) - Here is where I have some of my bigger concerns - the hitsounds. I want to believe that with all the piano involved, there are a plethora of ways to go about whistling any of this entire section but the way you hitsounded this part is incredibly inconsistent. Firstly, when you hitsound this circle 00:14:802 (5) - and this slider 00:15:576 (6) - it implies that every 1's and 3's would be a whistle but you didn't use a whistle on the first circle 00:14:028 (1) -
Then I have to ask myself, why is only the blue-tick circle having a whistle here 00:15:480 (5) - ? How come the red-tick circle can't have a whistle as well? They are part of the same grouping (4,5,6) but only two of them get the whistle sounds. You show it over here as well 00:16:931 (3,4,5) - it being part of the same grouping.
It might be possible to NC 00:15:576 (6) - because of how you paired (6,7) to be part of the same whistle group. A better solution in my opinion is to NC (6) and remove the whistle from (7) but keep the same whistle pattern as the first measure being 1's and 3's. So essentially 00:16:351 (5) - will have a whistle.
00:17:415 (6,7,8,9) - How come only two circles have whistles but not the rest? The music descends beat-by-beat naturally so I find it strange that only half of the beats get attention. The same can be said about 00:17:802 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4) - where (6) is another strong beat, but is the start of the pianos lowering in volume. You separated (6,1) when they actually belong in the same grouping.
00:19:157 (7,8,9,1) - This is a bit off because you group (8,9,1) being the strong whistles but (7) is just hanging around as part of the stream there when it has no attention like the rest. I feel like you're trying to make it way more complex than it is, really the whistle logic here is much simpler than that; emphasizing the high notes in each of the 3 groups, first one starting here 00:14:996 (1) - second starting here 00:16:738 (1) - and third starting here 00:19:447 (1) - , really the only one I'd understand arguing about would be 00:19:447 (1) - this one because in the third group it's quite a lower ptiches one,
but that's because rhythmically hitsounding as high low low high has a nice feedback, and since those are 1/2s it's preferable, while in the streams it has less importance so the emphasizing prime


00:19:447 (1,2,3,4) - How come there are only whistles on 1 and 4 when all four objects are the same strength in piano? If you don't want to hit whistles on all four, then rhythmically, you can whistle on 1 and 3 and that would make more sense than whistling 1 and 4. Also, because there are still beats on reds, I believe these would fit better as sliders (perhaps low SV) just so it can still hit the rhythms. Low SV sliders might help bring good spacing emphasis since they'll be treated more or less as held circles. ^see just above

00:20:609 (7,8,9,10,11,12,13) - Missing whistles on this half? I get that the volume is decreasing but you can add green lines to change the volumes with the whistles (every circle after 7 can go down in 5% for example). That would be a much stronger approach than ignoring half of the piano hitsounds. Not missing any nope, also reducing the volume to reduce hitsounds additions is really obnoxious while playing especially when feedback is needed like here

00:23:609 (4,5,6,7,8,9) - I don't really know how to explain this but this looks like a reading problem. Either there's a lack of NC'ing somewhere to help distinguish the multiple rhythm snaps, or the stacking itself is placed in a way that is not intuitive to read at all. You do this well in other sections, probably because unlike the one I highlighted, they don't overlap as much on different snaps as part of the same combo. The whole thing is intentionnal as you probably noticed, this part is meant to be hard to read

00:35:705 (1) - Not a too big of a deal, but the rest of the diffs had this hitsounded as a whistle but you were the only one to use finish so... maybe whistle instead? Nein sir, this feels like a finish to me

00:43:447 (1,2,3,4) - I never understood this and why there's so many snaps and rhythms being ignored here. The music is reaching a climax but you let go too early with these 1/8 drums that aren't actually snapped to 1/8 beats, it seems this was placed purely to add some sort of convoluted sense of contrast that is incredibly unfitting to what's happening in the song. It would be far more beneficial to the song to use the snaps the music provided (either 1/3s for piano or 1/4s for drums) and use some sliders or streams to help build the climax with the music instead of falling short with these incorrectly snapped 1/8 sliders. Because it's already hard enough to read/interpret as it is, I don't need to map every single sound you can hear to make sense of what is happening. If you want to call it some fancy words I guess we can go for Selective Emphasis, as it matters more to map what represents that section rather than mapping everything you hear, there is a fine line to not be crossed here in fear of falling into the realm of absurdity.

00:54:875 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - Not the worst thing here but it's the only inconsistent pattern in this section. It'll be more consistent to have the latter (1,2,3) imitate or copy/flip the former (1,2,3) as being a triangle. Yes it is a variation that breaks the consistency, it isn't random either as it happens on the last bit of that section, also when the song breask its pattern too

01:01:420 (1) - Missing Finish hitsound on an obvious crash it is a cymbal but they both feel too weak to warrant a finish especially when the patterning doesn't support it (and it doesn't bcs it's following the melody, not the drums)
01:03:602 (3) - ^

01:18:876 (1) - Your pattern/design suggests this circle would follow the previous combo as (7) but the NC makes it awkward to look at. From a rhythmic point of view, (1) doesn't really belong here because you'd be combining two separate measures together when (1) is unique apart from the rest, there's an obvious emphasis to it that it should begin elsewhere or have an increased spacing to accommodate. To me it makes perfect sense as it is well separated from the previous grouping, also it shouldn't be expected to go back on itself as the notes aren't repeating (which was the reason it did previously)

01:21:466 (3) - Spacing is extremely low compared to everything else that's happened in this difficulty thus far and it's unnatural and awkward to play this especially when the song is having it's huge build-up moment before the kiai. I'd suggest placing this elsewhere, maybe overlapping on top of 01:20:511 (6) - to keep your structure. dropoff + half stop, then builds back up is the logic here, which I find to be fitting

01:26:102 (3) - Hitsound error Additive hitsounding

01:26:239 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,1,2) - Clap spamming isn't suggested by the music here... I can understand the pattern as a means to show rising intensity but the music still holds claps on 2s and 4s. I don't know, this seems like a poor decision because it doesn't help follow what the song is suggesting. Continuing on, it might be wise to whistle 01:27:193 (1,2,3) - since there are strong pianos attached to them. You even have them grouped under their own combo so it makes sense to apply whistles here. I think I've discussed this part more than enough already, if you haven't read about it yet I'd encourage you to do so. Tl;dr though; additive hitsounding

01:27:602 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - Clap spamming might be suggested here, since the music is more pronounced and so are the instruments, but Finish spamming is a bit over the top lol (since this just suggests clap spamming as part of the music) see above ^

01:32:511 (3,4) - Should be repeat slider for consistency with 01:31:966 (1,2) - or it could be three 1/3 circles for the intonation in the song. Neither, it should be a slider leading into a circle then another repeat according to the song here, as the first 2 notes don't warrant circles, plus it helps spacing out and emphasizing the next repeat too

01:53:784 (1) - Obvious Finish is missed same reason as before, not following the drums but the melody and patterning (which follows the melody) doesn't support a finish here
overall I feel like you're both looking into things too hard and pressure your own interpretation too much, or missing the point and the intent behind it, not a bad mod per-se, but either missing the point and/or going against/not going towards the direction I want to go to

hope this cleared your concerns!
Foxy Grandpa

GoldenWolf wrote:

[Goldenwolf]
00:19:447 (1,2,3,4) - How come there are only whistles on 1 and 4 when all four objects are the same strength in piano? If you don't want to hit whistles on all four, then rhythmically, you can whistle on 1 and 3 and that would make more sense than whistling 1 and 4. Also, because there are still beats on reds, I believe these would fit better as sliders (perhaps low SV) just so it can still hit the rhythms. Low SV sliders might help bring good spacing emphasis since they'll be treated more or less as held circles. ^see just above Except those arent high low low high, these are all high pitch sounds that should be complimented with a whistle. While I see where you're coming from, a pattern like that doesn't work in this case because having whistles emphasizing the strong beats leading into a buildup should be necessary imo

00:20:609 (7,8,9,10,11,12,13) - Missing whistles on this half? I get that the volume is decreasing but you can add green lines to change the volumes with the whistles (every circle after 7 can go down in 5% for example). That would be a much stronger approach than ignoring half of the piano hitsounds. Not missing any nope, also reducing the volume to reduce hitsounds additions is really obnoxious while playing especially when feedback is needed like here Don't see how reducing the volume of this stream would be obnoxious at all when the sounds its being mapped to decrease in volume too. There's still going to be feedback, but now you can include all the proper whistles while complimenting the music with the decrease in volume rather than simply ignoring half of them.


00:43:447 (1,2,3,4) - I never understood this and why there's so many snaps and rhythms being ignored here. The music is reaching a climax but you let go too early with these 1/8 drums that aren't actually snapped to 1/8 beats, it seems this was placed purely to add some sort of convoluted sense of contrast that is incredibly unfitting to what's happening in the song. It would be far more beneficial to the song to use the snaps the music provided (either 1/3s for piano or 1/4s for drums) and use some sliders or streams to help build the climax with the music instead of falling short with these incorrectly snapped 1/8 sliders. Because it's already hard enough to read/interpret as it is, I don't need to map every single sound you can hear to make sense of what is happening. If you want to call it some fancy words I guess we can go for Selective Emphasis, as it matters more to map what represents that section rather than mapping everything you hear, there is a fine line to not be crossed here in fear of falling into the realm of absurdity. Players at this level would be able to interpret this "complex" rhythm (if you could even call it that) easily. This is a lame excuse and the 1/8's aren't fitting to the song in any sense, if you're not going to change the rhythm in this section atleast silence the sliderends... They're completely unfitting and take away from the drums in the background you do want to emphasize

01:01:420 (1) - Missing Finish hitsound on an obvious crash it is a cymbal but they both feel too weak to warrant a finish especially when the patterning doesn't support it (and it doesn't bcs it's following the melody, not the drums)This is one of the highest points in the entire song??? Not having a finish here is just absurd, and having an entire section that spams finishes like 01:27:602 - where it barley comes close to matching the intensity is just absurd.
01:03:602 (3) - ^


01:26:102 (3) - Hitsound error Additive hitsounding Lol as if, you use the excuse that there isnt a strong enough sound for a finish on 01:01:420 (1) - but you throw in a random drum finish here?

01:26:239 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,1,2) - Clap spamming isn't suggested by the music here... I can understand the pattern as a means to show rising intensity but the music still holds claps on 2s and 4s. I don't know, this seems like a poor decision because it doesn't help follow what the song is suggesting. Continuing on, it might be wise to whistle 01:27:193 (1,2,3) - since there are strong pianos attached to them. You even have them grouped under their own combo so it makes sense to apply whistles here. I think I've discussed this part more than enough already, if you haven't read about it yet I'd encourage you to do so. Tl;dr though; additive hitsounding While i agree that 01:26:784 (5,7) - sound fine with added claps, 01:26:511 (3) - does not. If you take away the clap sound on 3 it would give a better build up feel to the jump section that follows this instead of how it is now, which makes it feel like random snare drum spam.

01:27:602 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - Clap spamming might be suggested here, since the music is more pronounced and so are the instruments, but Finish spamming is a bit over the top lol (since this just suggests clap spamming as part of the music) see above ^ Except in this case the additive hitsounding is just annoying and unneeded, finishes are generally used for emphasizing strong individual moments in the music and as it is now its incredibly annoying to have 80% volume finishes being spammed for a section.


01:53:784 (1) - Obvious Finish is missed same reason as before, not following the drums but the melody and patterning (which follows the melody) doesn't support a finish here Same counter point as above for this part, literally the largest climax in the song and you're just using inconsistent excuses at this point.
Hello

I have some concerns about the whistle placement in the very start as well



  • Your whistle placement from 00:02:028 - to 00:07:834 - feels entirely random, half of the time you're missing very important sounds and putting whistle on the off beats
  1. 00:02:028 (2,3,4,5,6) - What logic is behind the whistle being on an offbeat blue tick and not on any of the white tick sounds, it makes no sense and just sounds bad. Especially because you don't have a whistle sound on literally the first important piano sound but have one on an off tick rhythm
  2. 00:03:770 (1,2) - Same point as above with off tick whistle sounds
  3. 00:05:222 (3,4) - Swap whistle placements here, the important sound is on 00:05:318 - and not the blue tick before it
  4. 00:06:092 (1) - I see no reason for there to be a missing whistle here at all
I hope you take my points into actual consideration instead of brushing them off to avoid another dq.
Pachiru
it's getting ridiculous
GoldenWolf
So, at this point I'm turning into a parrot, and I don't like this.

Instead of replying to bullet points, I'll be more direct and general; I have checked the hitsounding on my diff many, many times now. Pointing out the same things with the same arguments everytime gets a little bit old, especially when I made it clear that I do know and undertsand why people don't necessarily agree with these points, but also that I am aware and can confirm that the hitsounding is intentionnal. I don't feel like my reasoning is inconsistent nor weak. It isn't like I don't understand why people have concerns either, but those are the choices I made while making the map and reading/applying/replying to mods.

I am still surprised the hitsounding is getting *that* much attention, even more so when it doesn't really differ from how I usually hitsound logic-wise. I have explained myself on these points quite a few times already. The main thing to retain I guess would be that I didn't copycat the song 1:1 for the hitsounding, but rather emphasized the elements I felt stand out with selective/additive hitsounding. Wether you agree or not is fine by me, it's not like I expect everyone to just accept it, but I made it clear already that I do no want nor intent to change everything to please other people if it doesn't please me first. In the end, it is how I perceive the song, and how I felt like representing it. There are 2 other diffs doing what people seem to want already, I didn't feel like doing a 3rd, but rather went for something a bit different that felt closer to my own perception of it.

It really feels like being forced others' opinions and views on my map at this point which I dislike quite a bit. As far as I know, there isn't anything unrankable, and what gets mentionned now feels subjective enough I don't want to change these points if they don't please me aswell.

I also want to stress that I don't mind receiving mods, I don't mind the map to be DQ'd either, nor does Alheak seem to care much either, I never really cared and I do know and understand the Qualified buffer is there to improve a map which I happily agree to do if it does actually feel like I'd be improving the map doing so, and/or if they bring something new. The mods I got so far were constructive, and I do appreciate that, but also were the same repeated points, which at this point gets a bit old to be told and repeated again and again as to why I did or did not want to change things.

I think that will be about that for my rant. I hope I made my point clear by now! If I have to repeat any more of this, I'll make you step on lego barefoot.
Monstrata
Hello, I'll take this map down for now. The concerns brought forth by fdsfd and FoxyGrandpa seem relevant based on how long the mods are, and therefore should be considered. Reading the thread, it seems the mappers involved have a good justification for their decisions too, but it's best that we discuss these things without the pressure of time.

Additionally, here are some extra things I'd like to point out:
  1. (Insert random issue here).

[]

Made it easier for the QATs involved. Juts copy/paste that and change the last part, you're welcome ^^.
Mir
zzzzzzzzzz

this is getting stupid
ferret irl
The concerns with the other difficulties still stand
Stjpa
I looked through fdsfd's mod and I literally agree with nothing he mentioned, stop overmodding difficulties because that's how you ruin actual good stuff
Hysteria
I have a concern.
Foxy Grandpa
GW and i talked a bit, and after discussing stuff more things are fine as is, and which made me realize that almost all of the things i wrote are straight up retarded

I want to apologize to alheak for trying to start completely unneeded issues with the map, and ranking this even further, was completely unneeded and in the end i was retarded

hopefully there won't be more drama :ablobmaracas:
ferret irl

Stjpa wrote:

I looked through fdsfd's mod and I literally agree with nothing he mentioned, stop overmodding difficulties because that's how you ruin actual good stuff
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

analysis: you're dumb
Linada
Nao Tomori
Chewy stop plz its getting lame
ferret irl

Linada wrote:

https://osu.ppy.sh/help/wiki/Ranking_Criteria/Code_of_Conduct

u might need a good read of this
like that changes anything lmao
Pachiru

fdsfd wrote:

Linada wrote:

https://osu.ppy.sh/help/wiki/Ranking_Criteria/Code_of_Conduct

u might need a good read of this
like that changes anything lmao
Yes, it will teach you something that your parents might not have taught you. :)
ferret irl

Pachiru wrote:

Yes, it will teach you something that your parents might not have taught you. :)
Monstrata
Greetings,

Looking past the drama, I too have some things to say about the highest difficulty on this set.

[WOLF'S MAXIMUM]

  1. 00:01:254 (1,1) - Excellent use of a slow slider onto a circle! It really emphasizes the head in a unique way due to the shift in velocity from the slider to the head!
  2. 00:10:931 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12) - I'm a really big fan of patterns like this. Wonderful use of 3-note groupings to follow the 1/3 rhythms in the back! And they are scaling downward in spacing too, which help to convey the pitch change!
  3. 00:23:318 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,1,2,3,4,1) - Excellent rhythm choices that really showcase the shifting polarity in the song here!.
  4. 00:28:867 (1,2,3,4,5) - This is actually so fun to land.
  5. 00:52:693 (1,2,3) - Excellent use of triangles here for those 3 note groupings like what you did earlier!
  6. 00:56:511 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1) - Well designed accelerating stream.
  7. 01:01:420 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - I really love what you did here with the triangles. They get bigger and smaller depending on the pitch. Man, you really thought these patterns through.
  8. 01:05:239 (1,2,1) - This pacing change is really nicely done. And you have the sliders set up so its easy to catch the slider velocity shift too!
  9. 01:10:148 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - These stacks actually make so much sense with the music since its the same note repeated over and over again. Nice
  10. 01:21:057 (1,2,3) - Very unique spacing here of 3, but it works wonderfully with what you're trying to emphasize, and the low spacing and angle shift is really nice too in creating an interesting flow.
  11. 01:24:193 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3) - Excellent flows here!
  12. 01:26:239 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,1) - Nicely designed cross pattern here!
  13. 01:33:057 (1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,6) - Really like what you did here with the spacing correlation with pitch again!
  14. 01:41:511 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - You know I love my triangles <3
  15. 01:49:420 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - Oh, this rhythm is so fun to play, and it flows so well here!
  16. 01:51:602 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - ^Same!
  17. 01:53:784 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - These triangles again!! <3
[]

Sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused... Good work on this map, and I hope to see this in the ranked section soon!
Nao Tomori
- _ -
Kyuukai

Naotoshi wrote:

- _ -
-_
stq
-_-
Topic Starter
Alheak
Thank you fdsfd and Monstrata for your mods! I'm gonna reply to fdsfd's the best I can, I hope you'll find my explanations helpful.

fdsfd
General: Strongly consider moving the offset by about +20 on the 00:48:071 - since the beats seem to be happening in the map earlier than in the song. I've noticed like everywhere if i put it on 25% speed. I cannot do this because this is the exact same mp3 used in the current two ranked mania sets.

The bg has 5199 kb/s which is a lot, more than the audio lol. Dunno but transform it into jpg somehow, it will take a lot less space.It's a bit unnecessary because the folder size is still reasonable. I like the really high quality BGs ;p

Entrance to Valhalla

I kinda stand by Mir for this, except I think you don't need to sacrifice the symmetry concept, you'll just need to put in a bit more effort and possibly limit your design so that the map will be more consistent in terms of spacing. So to put it out again, I think that your overall spacing is raised too much therefore musical parts that need emphasis lack it on comparison to others, while on the other hand, the forced symmetry made certain patterns inconsistent when it comes to difficulty and emphasis. So firstly I'd like to discuss the emphasis idea implemented about the overall spacing, while on the second part i'll discuss how i think you can make stuff more consistent while preserving the symmetry etc. As I said to Mir, the only reason this would be something of discussion is how you treat spacing versus emphasis. In the case for my beatmap, the difficulty threshold is intentionally raised and this song has very little room to improve difficulty outside of spacing, therefore, concrete patterns are used at the risk of having 'awkward playability' to achieve my concept of symmetry, which of course regards to my high spacing. The spacing emphasis we're so used to seeing is not optimally captured because it wasn't intended to be captured in such modern ways. You will have one pattern on one half, and then play another pattern on the other half. The transition from patterns can be argued for both sides, I chose a side that's not seen in modern era. In addition, this song is a KAC Contest Song Winner and was one of the most difficult charts in SDVX and I like to reflect the difficulty this song presented in SDVX but for osu. It's what I do with all my other Contest Song Winners (iLLness LiLin, Lachryma, Celestial stinger, etc).

00:54:071 (1,2,1,2) - So in this section you gave larger emphasis to 00:48:889 (1) - these NCed notes that have this loud synth which other notes do not, but in the 1-2 ones, the (2) which doesn't have any important synth in this pattern particularly i initially linked is as emphasized as (1)? Why don't you keep that consistent https://i.imgur.com/ucfBFer.jpg with something like this. You will keep the symmetry idea while also make the (1)'s which sound stronger emphasized as you do often(dont mind the bg, i cant evaluate your map on bright bg xd). You can look at the top right and see where the objective spacing is in terms of pixel relation. The thing you linked me at 54s has more spacing than what was linked at 48s, and there is a clear finish on the former which is why I have the larger spacing. The two triangles from before don't have anything interesting as they are composed in 1-2-3 but the latter is composed in 1-2 1-2 so, I only reflect that. Your suggestion for keeping symmetry seems okay too, reasonable suggestion. I dislike it because it interferes with the former triangles. I wanted the spacing to be fill in the upper half while keeping a design since I already had objects in the bottom half. It's something I like to do in all my maps.
00:55:707 (1,2,3,4) - Since this is a lot more intense with those loud af sounds I think you should make it harder and different than the previous patterning since its not the same? How about something like this https://i.imgur.com/jlMQC4w.jpg I don't see any good in blending in such different sounds with same kind of patterning, it deserves special emphasis tbh. I thought about something like this too, the reason I didn't like it is because of the visual aspect yet again. There are objects in the bottom, then objects near the top, so I wanted to finish the section with objects in the center while keeping to "some" sort of symmetry. The triangle makes sense to me because the distance spacing is larger in whole than the rest of my previous patterns. I used flow change here because of the finishes. Your suggestion is reasonable too, I prefer my way because it achieves more of my vision.
01:03:548 - Not related, but I think you should map this, its quite audible and i think that the stream should start on the red tick. You're right here, I added more to the stream.
01:25:980 (1,2,2,3) - These are particularly overspaced, especially that slider which is not even a synth. https://i.imgur.com/r5wvgvq.jpg By reducing the spacing similar to the picture, 01:27:343 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,1) - this pattern which truly sounds much stronger will get the emphasis it deserves. Currently their jumps are actually similar to the distance of the ones I was talking. I've read your reply on Mir's point but having actual mechanical impact with spacing as differentiation is felt much more strongly than simple placement. Also density is not really something that emphasizes this pattern because in the map your note density is pretty high so it won't truly stand out in comparison to the rest. The repeating pattern is quite obviously distinguishable from the rest because it, repeats (and stacks)... The spacing on previous objects is at 2.60 while the spacing on the later repeating pattern goes in and out of 2.90 because it moves a bit up and down. I don't disagree that reducing spacing can help 'emphasize' the later pattern but the later pattern is already quite obvious in itself that it's different and the pattern itself is enough to be 'emphasizing' because of how different or impactful and especially how active it plays compared to the circles I placed before which was just more or less moving around the map, not so rigid with snapping and intense 1/2 clicking. I also can't agree with your suggestion because I find it a bit unnecessary to apply for the reasons I stated above. If anything, I think this is nitpicky so I stand neutral on it, leaning more towards disagree for my reasons.
01:42:071 (1,2,1,2) - Identical concern as I've mentioned earlier to 1-2 patterning. The (2)'s are quite weaker than (1)'s yet they have similar or even higher emphasis in spacing (01:42:071 (1) - clicking on this you can see 2.7x previous and 3.6x next). By doing something like this https://i.imgur.com/l55fzcI.jpg you will make the emphasis on (1) which is a strong synth consistent to 01:42:616 (1,3,5) - for example where you give emphasis to synth, preserve the symmetrical structure, and keep overall intensity of the jumps high. This kind of suggestion goes to all 1-2 jumps in the section, your choice how you build them.
Also regarding the 1-2, in this section imo they should be noticeably less emphasized than in 01:49:161 - this section where the sounds are the same but the intensity of the section scaled overall, which means that they should be scaled appropriately to the new similar, but more intense section. Your suggestion makes good sense here. I did try to work with this idea, but I couldn't find a way to keep my visual aesthetics this way because I try to avoid overlaps with previous existing objects and make use for further objects. I did however fix some of my gradual spacing idea and fixed some back and forth patterns to be consistent with my intentions. Had to adjust some directions but I think it's a little bit better now~
01:52:980 (1,2,1,2) - Even though these sounds are intenser than 01:50:798 (1,2,1,2) - the large spacing difference won't compensate for the patterning. You should imo make this more emphasized than that in spacing at least. My previous suggestion of 1-2 patterning goes to here too also tbh. I mean, you could look at it in two ways: the pitch is higher so make the spacing higher. or: the pitch is different so that pattern is treated differently. The spacing isn't the only thing to look at here because you should factor in how a player a plays this versus the back and forth stack from before. One is simpler than the other, one is less active than the other. The pitch rises and the gameplay is more 'exciting' whereas the previous has something that's flatter as it is with the music. What I like about my current patterns is that they can flow visually well into one another while keeping to my symmetrical idea. But the interpretation is quite open and I think it comes down to what you prefer more, many people will say different.

Now regarding the symmetry individual emphasis inconsistencies:

00:50:116 (2,1) - The (1) which is the downbeat is less emphasized than 00:51:071 (1) - because of spacing. I know I know patterning etc, but look, there's no harm in making it emphasized by spacing too. An option I found to be quite ideal was making the previous pattern https://i.imgur.com/IFzei4I.jpg like this, making the circle on the left being far away from the (1) therefore making the jump as about large as 00:50:934 (3,1) -. You can do it in a similar way here https://i.imgur.com/Jz0hhZx.jpg . In this pattern consider bringing 00:52:434 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - closer to the middle to make it easier, I mean, 00:53:116 (3,1) - just look at this jump on this relatively calm section, it's just a regular beat but this is 4.30x compared to a downbeat 00:52:434 (1) - with a finish. I'm glad you can understand my point of view. Your suggestion doesn't fit me will, and there are many ways to try and map this as shown in other difficulties. As I state before this map is conceptual so, modern mapping techniques will be quite loose and it's due to the symmetry. Because you can understand my reasoning, I don't want to expand too far in it. Gradually getting spaced is the idea while pertaining to symmetry and not everything can be as "optimally emphasized" as you wish because of symmetry. My idea with triangles and rotations etc.
00:54:616 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - I believe you should put in a little more effort here to make (1)'s emphasized like you do usually, this is just a large inconsistency without any particular reason. Simply just copy paste the right triangle and invert it https://i.imgur.com/IQdKwqs.jpg idk, the angle compensates for the lack of spacing to the nced note. Okay, I fixed this. I think I had a reasoning for playability but the inconsistency is much worse, so I did fixed the circles there.
01:49:844 (3,1) - This is one of the spots in which it will take you effort to arrange the patterns so that it gets spacing emphasis like most (1)'s do. https://i.imgur.com/blyyqCm.jpg idk? I do this sort of thing quite consistently as shown here 01:52:025 (3,1) - and 01:52:844 (3,1) - so,
it would be a bit jarring to fix one and not the others but they're all kept to being consistent with sharing the patterns together. The only (1)s that get obvious emphasis are the (1)s that go back and forth stack on each other. While your suggestion isn't bad, I don't see it being a huge necessity. There are a lot of ideas that work here don't get me wrong.


Thank you for your suggestion MaridiuS. Thank you for spending the time to write this all out and provide visual examples of your sentiments as it makes it easier for me to see what you mean. While I cannot agree to fix on a lot of what you've suggested, I hope my reasonings make sense to you. I only applied what I saw fitting and beneficial to my map. This took me a while to evaluate so please don't be offend if my response came off negative. :)
Ideal
kroytz back with another good response to a good mod
ferret irl
Thank you for your reply, Alheak. I now return into my eternal slumber where I shall not be awakened for another 100 years.
ferret irl
Oh and when are you going to fucking properly respond to the mod because it has actual issues in Pono's diff that needs to be looked at
ScubDomino
I have concerns.


merge with kroytz's map ty
coco
Greetings,
Xinnoh
What exactly do you get from using profanity in this situation besides looking immature
ferret irl

Sinnoh wrote:

What exactly do you get from using profanity in this situation besides looking immature
What exactly do you get from being language police in this situation besides looking for a thin rope to hold on to so the map doesn't get DQed for simple shit that can be fixed
Stjpa
But his difficulties are structured really well and your suggestions are optional stuff and also very subjective, nothing that would improve this set very much if at all
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply