I don't get why you would leave a gap at 00:02:885 but you would map these sounds at 00:02:056 (2056|1,2222|2,2388|1) - , vocals are introduced at 00:02:885 and the sound is more prominent than the 3 previous notes. Even if there's indeed some sound for 00:02:056 (2056|1,2222|2,2388|1) - but I think they are too faint and overwhelmed by the strength of these 00:01:973 (1973|2,2139|3,2305|0) - lead melodies.
Therefore I think it's better to remove 00:02:056 (2056|1,2222|2,2388|1) - these 3 notes and add a note at 00:02:885
Why 00:19:625 (19625|3) - this note is presented while 00:22:277 has no note? They have the same structure but they are mapped differently. I'd suggest you to remove 00:19:625 (19625|3) - and make 00:19:874 double to keep consistent.
It could go like this: https://pasteboard.co/Kc16pSm.png. I've rearranged some rolls so that it looks more symmetrical and consistent with the following layers.
keep / 00:19:625 - I don't think there's a problem with using notes because this is the point where the sound clearly splits.
00:19:874 - Since the sound is gradually lowered here, I thought it would be best to express it as a single.
In addition, in the playable aspect of the suggested pattern, the spike becomes too high to match the intensity of the song, so I will keep the current pattern.
00:23:520 (23520|2,23562|1,23603|0,23645|3) - Since these sounds are way stronger than the normal rolls u have like at 00:23:686 (23686|1,23727|2,23769|3,23810|0,23852|1) or 00:22:691 (22691|3,22733|2,22774|0,22816|1,22857|3), I'd recommend making them less staircase-rolly to distinguish itself from others roll here and to emphasize the intensity of the sound too. For example https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/16739157/3fc8
00:25:675 (25675|1,25675|2,26006|0,26006|3,26338|0,26338|2,26669|1,26669|3) - Nitpicking but this should follow the LN structure at 00:24:349 (24349|1,24349|0,24680|2,24680|3,25012|3,25012|2,25343|0,25343|1) for representation consistency
00:31:559 (31559|0,31725|1) - Doubles like 00:30:233 (30233|1,30233|0,30399|1,30399|0) (first one can be single or double)
Same for 00:32:885 (32885|2,33051|2), 00:36:863 (36863|3,37028|3), 00:38:189 (38189|1,38354|1), etc. There are a lot throughout the map
Or make all of them singles since your layering would benefit them from being singles more
Oopsh completely forgot the case for 01:44:487 (104487|3,104487|2,104653|3,104653|2), 01:49:791 (109791|0,109791|1,109957|0,109957|1)
01:44:487 (104487|3,104487|2,104653|2,104653|3), 01:49:791 (109791|0,109791|1,109957|0,109957|1), 01:55:095 (115095|2,115095|0,115261|0,115261|1), etc. Note that layering can be different throughout this section. I mentioned this section because while every single one of this sound here can be double since section layering and there isn't really much going on here, it's not consistently presented as doubles
01:44:487 (104487|2,104653|2) - single 01:44:487 (104487|2,104653|2,109791|1,109957|1) - same 01:55:012 - https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/16739750/e629 01:55:675 - This part has a really big sound, is it okay to use it as a double?
00:31:559 (31559|0,31725|1) - Should be on the same col for the hihat-ish sound repetition like u did throughout this section
00:34:294 (34294|3,34377|2) - Since you have the notes for vocals here, it feels really empty to skip 00:34:128, and a minijack here would also fit since the vocal repeats itself 3 times
01:48:465 (108465|2,108465|3) - Same here
00:39:432 (39432|2,39515|3,39680|2,39763|3,39846|2,39929|3,40012|2) - this pattern certainly looks decent, but it's quite heavy for right hand especially this finger locking anchor 00:39:680 (39680|2,39846|2,40012|2) - . I think moving 00:39:846 (39846|2,39929|1) - these notes one column to the left is better
01:01:393 here also is a sound, could shorten 01:01:227 (61227|2) - to 1/4 and add a rice. Makes it a bit harder with the jack ,but yeah
01:03:879 - The scratching sound for 01:03:796 (63796|3,63962|2) is quite similar to 01:03:548 (63548|2,63631|0,63631|1), so it feels empty when 01:03:796 (63796|3,63962|2) is more simplified despite its intensity is bigger than the other one. Consider at least adding some LN here, but if u can, make the 2nd scratching sound more prominent than the first one
personal preference but how about making 01:03:962 (63962|1) as double LNs (same reason: "if u can, make the 2nd scratching sound more prominent than the first one")
01:18:796 I don't really see what sound exactly you are mapping with the 1/4 before triples. I'd personally rather represent that using LN, something like https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/16588595/760e (also restructured some stuff to make it fit, why is 01:19:708 a triple?)
keep / It is a little small, but there is a sound in the background. and 01:01:227 (61227|2) - It's a bit exaggerated, but I think it's reasonable compared to the overall drum usage of the mapset, even with a triple.
Well, snap gets too complicated than I thought, so I'd rather simplify it with LN to keep the overall mapset consistent. https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/16739688/f0bb
01:29:073 (89073|2) - There's a note here but not 01:23:769, same song structure and should be mapped the same, the shields and finger-locking trill is also not a problem cuz it's presented several times throughout this section.
01:47:056 and 01:44:404 sound pretty much the same ,but are mapped completely different ,esp in terms of what is doubled. In general I don't really understand what you double/triple in this section (01:51:200 (111200|2) - stronger hit single ,01:51:366 (111366|3,111366|1) - weaker after double?). Seems weird to me,but yeah I don't usually map 5* so idk
I don't think there's a sound strong enough to support this 01:49:045 (109045|3,109045|2) - double, this double also make things look a lot denser, while the drum sounds are placed statically at 1/1, it differs a lot from the previous section (00:34:459) . Therefore I'd suggest you to make it single. Since you extended this LN 01:48:465 (108465|3) - to 3/4 I think you can do something with it like https://pasteboard.co/Kc1teh5.png, this is just my suggestion if u want to apply
01:52:443 (112443|2) - Double for kick here. The double shield wouldn't affect anything, especially at this level of difficulty
02:00:150 (120150|3,120150|2,120316|0,120316|1,120399|3,120399|2,120564|2,120564|3) - I don't really get how u simplify the rhythm here but then for 02:01:227 (121227|2,121310|1,121393|3,121476|2,121476|1,121476|0,121642|3,121725|2,121807|1,121890|0) you have them way more detailed. Not to say that these 2 sections are layered differently too. I'd recommend changing the first section to be similar to the 2nd one
02:05:122 to 02:23:686 - The song here switches each measure between a syncopated synth melody and a piano melody line. As it stands this switch is very clear and prominent, and can also be read as a call-and-response.
The music establishes a call-and-response structure in the chorus between the synth and the piano, but little distinction is made in the patterning -- the chorus is entirely represented by continuous jumpstreams with LNs, only ever abrupted every two measures as an indication of simple conceptualized phrasing. The player will not be able to feel a difference or embrace the understanding of this call-and-response. (1/2)
Currently, the way that the piano LNs are phrased seems to be reasonable. For the synth sections, however, the rhythm that the LNs occupate do not correspond well with the prominent syncopation of the melody synths. These beats should be emphasized more clearly in order to cultivate a proper distinction of the sections. This would involve some sacrificing of the LN layering to achieve, but it does not result in too much difference.
Since in its current state, the musical integrity in regards to representing a call and response is not upheld in the mapping, I propose that it is necessary to more clearly make this distinction between the synth and piano sections within the patterning of the LNs. (2/2)
Ok... now that I have some free time
I can definitely see how both the instruments are blended in here, but then the gimmick here is not to make them stood out from each other, but rather to represent the intensity of the song through layering and patterning (simplified, but more trill-esque with heavier layering for synth/piano mashup section and vice versa for piano-solo section). Sure it's not the best way to tackle this section here, but it's reasonable, and I do think the gimmick does offer something alternatively interesting to what this section would be normally represented. Hence, I share the same stance as Shima's here
I also think it's a bit unclear what the objection is trying to say. The current use of LN consists of the first half (02:05:371 - 02:06:448 - ) focusing on the synth sound that is clearly emphasized, and the second half (02:06:448 - 02:07:774 - ) plays the piano. The LN was structured around the center. I don't think there is much room for confusion because this part is really clearly divided.
AH said
(simplified, but more trill-esque with heavier layering for synth/piano mashup section and vice versa for piano-solo section)
If density / difficulty is the case here then 02:10:426 - until 02:11:752 - this synth "call" part should be with more trill-ish patterning as well. Same with 02:13:078 - until 02:14:404 etc
I disagree tbh. I feel like leaving breathing space between each synth cycle makes the design choice that much more meaningful (or by adding notes at pointed section, it would make this section feels much more like a stream section rather than something more meaningful than it currently has). Also, focusing on the strongest synths here for me is side to side with the gimmick that I interpreted and mentioned before so I don't think it's necessary to 100% apply the gimmick to the whole section
02:09:515 (129515|2) - I know this is for aesthetic, but since there is no piano sound here, having a LN here is kinda unfitting. U can probably do sth here to represent the sudden stop in piano (for me, I'd do sth like https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/16739549/61c8 . The highlighted notes are repeated to show that there is no progression in the song when the piano stops)
02:09:432 - https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/16739692/d510 02:20:122 (140122|2) - This part is low, but there seems to be a clear piano sound. Can you check it again?
yea there's a piano sound there, I totally forgot about that lmao. Ur pattern looks great, but if u still want to use the suggestion, then where the piano sound is there should be a 1/2 LN
keep / 02:09:515 - I think it's a more reasonable choice to simplify this part to 1/2 LN because the piano sound is too weak and unclear.
02:20:205 - This part was agreed with ahh, and it was intentionally configured as a normal note because if LN was used in a complicated way until just before the 1/8 pattern appeared, it could be overly complicated.
02:11:172 (131172|2,131504|1) - Don't really understand the sudden drop of layering here (these r supposed to be doubles like previously) other than for aesthetic purposes (which then can be done by maneuvering the notes around like https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/16739269/9491 for example) considering the sound intensity here is the same. Either way, sacrificing layering for a staircase look doesn't feel right for me.
02:14:404 (134404|2,134487|1,134570|3,134653|2,134736|1,134819|3,134901|2,134984|1,135067|3) - The piano here is way too dynamic for them to be on the same columns. Considering having some variations here. Same for the 2nd itteration
02:11:587 (131587|0), 02:14:238 (134238|3) - Shouldn't these be doubles instead of 02:14:156 (134156|2,134156|0) and 02:11:504 (131504|3,131504|1) like you did at 02:06:283 (126283|0,126283|1) and 02:08:935 (128935|2,128935|3). Kinda see that you're follow the piano partly here, but the mentioned sections also have piano sounds there too so consider making it similar to each other
In general, this structure was formed. https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/16739667/e3aa, 02:06:366 - The sound of the location was not used in all similar places.
I mean it's consistent, but 02:08:935 (128935|3), 02:11:587 (131587|0), 02:14:238 (134238|3), etc. have really clear synth sound that I'd suggest making them double
02:20:205 (140205|0,140288|1) - Since there's a sudden kick here, maybe break the piano pattern here to represent it?
From your suggestion 02:20:288 - https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/16739811/4e2e Is it okay to use this part as a double? The sound is rather low, so I think it is closer to a single. + If only this part is confirmed, I will follow your suggestion.
02:20:620 (140620|2,140661|1,140703|0,140744|3,140785|2) - This going from the same direction and starting where 02:20:371 (140371|3,140412|2,140454|1,140495|0,140537|3) left off makes this feels monotonous imo. Considering flipping the direction of this roll and 02:20:868 (140868|1,140910|2,140951|3,140993|0,141034|1,141034|2) too if u decide to change this
02:20:868 (140868|2,140910|1,140951|0,140993|3,141034|1,141034|2) - personally I'd prefer something like https://pasteboard.co/Kc1GZnY.png, so that it looks aesthetically better, and can be an inverse pattern of 02:20:371 (140371|3,140412|0,140454|1,140495|2,140537|3) -
02:26:338 to 02:27:332 - This pattern as it currently stands is a rolly, monodirectional 2-1-2-1 1/6 jumpstream. At 181BPM, this is equivalent to 271.5BPM on 1/4 snaps.
Due to the fact that this is entirely rolly and monodirectional, it is possible to simply play this as a two-handed jumptrillable roll, and this is how many players playing this map will approach this due to the fact that this is indeed a spike in density and thus a potential spike in reading (not a difficulty spike, as this is rolly and monodirectional after all, so it will be a lot easier to approach -- however, the problem is not alleviated because of this). (1/4)
Players will approach this in one of two ways. Many players will go for the aforementioned option, to cheese the pattern as a roll. Other players who are capable of more deliberacy in this sort of patterning will be able to distinctly hit the patterns, but because of its monodirectionality, it is very easy to slip up on, and is generally agreed to be a very frustrating pattern to play if aiming for high accuracy. In either scenario, this patterning is not optimal; and in the former, the player will not able to distinctly feel the grittiness of the 1/6 in this section, as they are cheesing the pattern. (2/4)
The logical conclusion to this analysis is that the pattern must be redone into something that can be played more deliberately. Such a pattern may consist of something more two-hand trilly, and dispersed across the playfield so that as not to be overwhelming for reading. There are many options for this. One example is to have a two-handed trill switch each beat from outer to inner and back to outer columns (i.e. 141414232323141414), or vice versa. This allows for ease of reading and pattern digestibility, and emphasizes the core beat of the music, as these notes are recognized by the player in groups of 6. (3/4)
It is also entirely viable to group the notes in 3, where every 3 notes is a different trill, but this can become a bit convoluted if not carefully done.
Since this pattern can easily be improperly interpreted, I propose that it is necessary to repattern this to a more distinct, recognizable pattern that will allow the player to digest the musical aspect of this section. (4/4)
The explanation of how to handle it is reasonable enough, but it is not a structure that increases suddenly because real players recognize that ss is sufficiently possible patterning, and there are quite a lot of 1/8 patterns of 360bpm over 271bpm in dif. Also, to make it easier to handle, I intentionally made it one-way, and at the last 02:27:332 - I also avoid minijack and configure it to be 1/8 so that handling is not impossible.
when it comes with the actuality of the instrument interpretation, what about 1/6 trill? https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/16974758/c1a8
if that's too dense, maybe try to break down the trill into shorter section like https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/16974764/ae16 ? basically #2556872/6990537 ?
https://puu.sh/I5KeD/19779c1ab5.png will this do then?
this suggestion might misses out the point that mint try to raise, but during testplay, i think this duo-directional pattern feels, looks, & plays easier, makes it less likely to slip up and losing accuracy, without reducing the note density you want to implement here, that also 'sort of' mimick the actuality of the instrument interpretation.
ps: 2 hand trill with a length of 3 beats that mimick the piano, even though the density is lower than the current 1/6 jumpstream, can't be underestimated and plays much harder than more dense pattern haha
02:37:443 (157443|3,157691|1) - i don't really get what sound you're mapping here. I guess there are sounds on 02:37:498 and 02:37:664 (1/6 snap), but nothing on 1/4 I can hear. Why are there even sounds on 1/6 camellia plz
Tbh, I really think that going with 1/6 is more impactful here since every single sound is suggesting for the gap to be 1/6, and the sudden change from 1/4 to 1/6 makes this more stands out