This beatmap was submitted using in-game submission on Friday, July 02, 2010 at 9:54:58 PM

Artist: SION
Title: Funky Cat Maybe
Tags: Funky Cat Maybe JPop death by moe Anime catgirl
BPM: 100
Filesize: 18395kb
Play Time: 03:30
Difficulties Available:

1. Hard (4.63 stars, 391 notes)
2. Insanity (4.93 stars, 519 notes)
3. Normal (4.25 stars, 34 notes)
4. Special (Dance!) (4.8 stars, 34 notes)

Download: SION - Funky Cat Maybe
Download: SION - Funky Cat Maybe (no video)
Information: Scores/Beatmap Listing
---------------
Thanks to strager for encoding the video~

Special (Dance!) is an experiment -- it may or may not be actually in the final beatmap.

Video.

From my knowledge of modding i don't see anything wrong except for the 56 and 41 combos.

01:28:331(23,24) - is this legal? (this appears later in the song)


i love the song and the map xD

Hard
Insanity
I personally thing that Nekomiolol.png is unnecessary.
Also, i suggest Taiko beats, due to the ":3" faces:

All above:

Fixed

this song was already mapped by Peppy (for the record)

Loogiesquared wrote:

this song was already mapped by Peppy (for the record)

Yeah, I know.
Also, I couldn't take his (higher quality) video because there was a filesize limit enacted since then.

Revived.

Star~

IRC modding


I really need to star this, awesome map <3

Hard

00:36:281 (7,8,9,10,11) - I have no problems with this, but why isn't it curved?

01:46:631 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23) -

This is unrankable. Combos may not exceed18 in a ranked map.

It can be cut down to size.

02:10:565 (1,2,3) - I don't know what beat your following but it doesn't consist of strong beats.

02:11:690 - A note should be here.
02:11:877 - ^
02:12:065 (2) - Doesn't even have a strong note behind it.
02:12:642 - Note?
02:13:190 - Note?

02:36:046 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40) - I don't think this is even acceptable.

02:54:046 (3) - Does this belong here instead? 02:53:896 - I'm not sure. It's set on a tone that I can't identify.

03:09:646 (5,6,7,8) - I'm not sure if adding timing sections like this is rankable. It seems like abuse of timing sections to me. We'll see though.

TheVileOne wrote:

Hard

00:36:281 (7,8,9,10,11) - I have no problems with this, but why isn't it curved?

01:46:631 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23) -

This is unrankable. Combos may not exceed18 in a ranked map.

It can be cut down to size.

02:10:565 (1,2,3) - I don't know what beat your following but it doesn't consist of strong beats.

02:11:690 - A note should be here.
02:11:877 - ^
02:12:065 (2) - Doesn't even have a strong note behind it.
02:12:642 - Note?
02:13:190 - Note?

02:36:046 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40) - I don't think this is even acceptable.

02:54:046 (3) - Does this belong here instead? 02:53:896 - I'm not sure. It's set on a tone that I can't identify.

03:09:646 (5,6,7,8) - I'm not sure if adding timing sections like this is rankable. It seems like abuse of timing sections to me. We'll see though.

Blue- Fixed
The notes that you identified as being off are mapped to the background video, not the song.

Overall

Doesn't have a preview point.

Insanity

00:15:742 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - This combo doesn't sound right. I don't think the notes are in the right place. With the numbers being ticks I believe the pattern is 1111-111111-11 Here is your current pattern 1-1-11-11-1-1 I think you should focus on the doubles in the beat (which start on blue ticks BTW)


00:15:741 - Double starts
00:16:041 - Double starts
00:16:491 - Double starts
00:16:791 - Double starts
00:17:091 - Double starts
00:17:541 - Double starts (this one may be a bit too close to the next note to be usable)

You may want to mix up sliders and notes for the doubles.

00:25:342 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - Wrong pattern as before.

Doubles start:

00:25:341 -
00:25:641 -
00:26:091 -
00:26:391 -
00:26:841 -
00:27:141 -

00:27:442 (9,10,1,2,1,2,1,2) - Doesn't flow well at all IMO. However you might want to seek a separate opinion. I think it's way too fast for the beat. BTW if you want t adouble BPM section, use a 2x Uninherited. Don't up the BPM to 200. The proper BPM for this section is 100. Use it.

01:10:331 (9,10) - Reduce spacing by 1 unit.

01:14:381 (6) - Move down 2 grid units to align the note between 5 and 7. Preferrably this note should be manually placed with grid snap off to make it perfect.

01:14:831 (8) - Same with above. Properly align this with grid snap off.

01:18:131 (1,2) - Too far. BATs would never allow it. Besides it doesn't even sound like a jump.

01:55:481 (9) - New combo?

01:57:881 (7) - ^

01:59:231 - I feel a note should go here.

02:01:031 (2) - I highly doubt this is rankable.

Eh again we'll see when the BATs look at it.


Doesn't deserve a star in it's current state. There are several misuses of features and it doesn't currently have an easier difficulty.

TheVileOne wrote:

Overall

Doesn't have a preview point.

Insanity

00:15:742 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - This combo doesn't sound right. I don't think the notes are in the right place. With the numbers being ticks I believe the pattern is 1111-111111-11 Here is your current pattern 1-1-11-11-1-1 I think you should focus on the doubles in the beat (which start on blue ticks BTW)


00:15:741 - Double starts
00:16:041 - Double starts
00:16:491 - Double starts
00:16:791 - Double starts
00:17:091 - Double starts
00:17:541 - Double starts (this one may be a bit too close to the next note to be usable)

You may want to mix up sliders and notes for the doubles.

00:25:342 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - Wrong pattern as before.

Doubles start:

00:25:341 -
00:25:641 -
00:26:091 -
00:26:391 -
00:26:841 -
00:27:141 -

00:27:442 (9,10,1,2,1,2,1,2) - Doesn't flow well at all IMO. However you might want to seek a separate opinion. I think it's way too fast for the beat. BTW if you want t adouble BPM section, use a 2x Uninherited. Don't up the BPM to 200. The proper BPM for this section is 100. Use it. (But what's the difference?)

01:10:331 (9,10) - Reduce spacing by 1 unit.

01:14:381 (6) - Move down 2 grid units to align the note between 5 and 7. Preferrably this note should be manually placed with grid snap off to make it perfect.

01:14:831 (8) - Same with above. Properly align this with grid snap off.

01:18:131 (1,2) - Too far. BATs would never allow it. Besides it doesn't even sound like a jump.

01:55:481 (9) - New combo?

01:57:881 (7) - ^

01:59:231 - I feel a note should go here.

02:01:031 (2) - I highly doubt this is rankable.

Eh again we'll see when the BATs look at it.


Doesn't deserve a star in it's current state. There are several misuses of features and it doesn't currently have an easier difficulty.

What do you mean by "Double Starts"?
As for the potentially unrankable bits, I'd rather not take them out unless I'm forced to -- keep in mind that this difficulty is intended for the "expert" audience.

Daru wrote:

TheVileOne wrote:

Overall

Doesn't have a preview point.

Insanity

00:15:742 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - This combo doesn't sound right. I don't think the notes are in the right place. With the numbers being ticks I believe the pattern is 1111-111111-11 Here is your current pattern 1-1-11-11-1-1 I think you should focus on the doubles in the beat (which start on blue ticks BTW)


00:15:741 - Double starts
00:16:041 - Double starts
00:16:491 - Double starts
00:16:791 - Double starts
00:17:091 - Double starts
00:17:541 - Double starts (this one may be a bit too close to the next note to be usable)

You may want to mix up sliders and notes for the doubles.

00:25:342 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - Wrong pattern as before.

Doubles start:

00:25:341 -
00:25:641 -
00:26:091 -
00:26:391 -
00:26:841 -
00:27:141 -

00:27:442 (9,10,1,2,1,2,1,2) - Doesn't flow well at all IMO. However you might want to seek a separate opinion. I think it's way too fast for the beat. BTW if you want t adouble BPM section, use a 2x Uninherited. Don't up the BPM to 200. The proper BPM for this section is 100. Use it. (But what's the difference?)

01:10:331 (9,10) - Reduce spacing by 1 unit.

01:14:381 (6) - Move down 2 grid units to align the note between 5 and 7. Preferrably this note should be manually placed with grid snap off to make it perfect.

01:14:831 (8) - Same with above. Properly align this with grid snap off.

01:18:131 (1,2) - Too far. BATs would never allow it. Besides it doesn't even sound like a jump.

01:55:481 (9) - New combo?

01:57:881 (7) - ^

01:59:231 - I feel a note should go here.

02:01:031 (2) - I highly doubt this is rankable.

Eh again we'll see when the BATs look at it.


Doesn't deserve a star in it's current state. There are several misuses of features and it doesn't currently have an easier difficulty.

What do you mean by "Double Starts"?
As for the potentially unrankable bits, I'd rather not take them out unless I'm forced to -- keep in mind that this difficulty is intended for the "expert" audience.

I mean your pattern is wrong. Where I said double starts, I mean that there are two sounds on consecuative ticks there. You should consider starting your two note sets on the places that I mentioned, because those places are where the notes should go.

TheVileOne wrote:

Overall

Doesn't have a preview point.

Insanity

00:15:742 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - This combo doesn't sound right. I don't think the notes are in the right place. With the numbers being ticks I believe the pattern is 1111-111111-11 Here is your current pattern 1-1-11-11-1-1 I think you should focus on the doubles in the beat (which start on blue ticks BTW)


00:15:741 - Double starts
00:16:041 - Double starts
00:16:491 - Double starts
00:16:791 - Double starts
00:17:091 - Double starts
00:17:541 - Double starts (this one may be a bit too close to the next note to be usable)

You may want to mix up sliders and notes for the doubles.

00:25:342 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - Wrong pattern as before.

Doubles start:

00:25:341 -
00:25:641 -
00:26:091 -
00:26:391 -
00:26:841 -
00:27:141 -

Still don't get what you mean by double starts. Can you reword your explanation?