ReviXy

Removed the note at 00:00:866 (866|1) ,the rest are fine imo

https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/18598461/6b1f I'm guessing you meant it like this,if so I changed the pattern to the screenshot (I've also mirrored 00:01:033 (1033|1,1033|0,1116|2,1116|3,1116|1) for consistency sake)

Done

That note's there for the hihat

i think you should still place a note 00:03:783 - here even if you keep the other one

00:05:366 - also you dont chart this hihat

Added the one hihat at 5 secs but the one at 3 secs is intentional,I tried to follow the main melody there so I left that empty to emphasize

Whoops,I missed those,fixed

here too 00:04:783 (4783|0) -

00:02:116 (2116|1) -

00:04:116 (4116|2) -

00:07:449 (7449|2) -

and sooo on. I think you can check ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh's diff

I hope I fixed them all,so many ghost notes

Don't think the sound there's loud enough for people to hear while playing it

Seems like a good suggestion to me

Didn't even hear the notes there,added

Made a different pattern that fits better imo

The 1/8 is fine but I guess I can remove 00:12:199 (12199|2)

00:16:033 (16033|0) - too

Fixed

I keep that spot empty at that part,such as 00:03:783 - 00:06:449 - 00:09:116 . The sound is there but it may appear as a ghost note due to how hard to notice it is

Think I deleted it while I was applying one of your mods

Yeah sure

I'm not sure,it seems to be as intense as the other triples. I'll keep it for now but I might change it if someone else also points this out

Think it's fine the way it is rn

The LN's fine imo,the synths are a little long so I had to put a LN. And 00:24:533 does have a synth but it's a lot shorter than the 2 LN's before that

The grace has to be there to represent music so I'll keep it

Yeah that wasn't intentional

What do you mean by that?

I reviewed this moment and realized that I was wrong, I apologize

or maybe just make one of 00:27:199 (27199|1,27199|3) - as ln

Feel like it represents the music well enough as it is so I'll pass

The pitch of the synth is different,so I wanted to reflect that by mapping it differently

Isn't there a better way to do this? Your current representation is just one singular ln. And that mixes in with every other surrounding synths 00:27:533 (27533|1,27699|0,28033|3,28199|1,28366|0) - so it makes your emphasis more inconsistent. The pitch you attempted to highlight is close to negligible so it would create more of a confusion as to why you did this.

I'm gonna have to agree with Neon here. Just because it's a slightly different pitch does not justify that it's still being ignored and simplified, which becomes muddled with your other LNs already focusing on the other synths. If you really want to map it differently, why not do something like this?

I think that pattern will end up fitting less,as the sound at 00:27:949 is barely audible at 100% speed

Doing so would break this pattern (00:28:199 (28199|1,28366|0,28533|1,28699|0,28866|1,28949|0,29033|1,29116|0)) for all sections like this and I think at this level,a one hand trill with no other notes should be playable

Alrighty that's fine

.

Yeah it was apparently not timed well,fixed

I wanted to but idk how to do it,I'll keep this up as a reminder

Changed my mind,the SV will be sudden imo since I won't use SV's like that

True,idk why I felt that was necessary to make it less difficult

Moved the second set to [12] instead

Yeah,sounds fair

That note's for the drum, the LN at 00:38:199 (38199|0) is for the synth. I'll change the note to a clap just in case though

Yeah,might've nerfed the map a little too much at some points,made a trill for the drumroll and hitsounded them

Done

I want the triple jack to be there as 00:41:199 also has them

Why did you add the third note here, although at 00: 41: 199 you don’t have it?

idk why there's a note at 00:40:033 ,got rid of it

Yeah,I guessed it'd be too easy. Tried making it a little harder

00:41:533 - 00:42:533 is filled with 12 and 34's so I wanted to keep it like this

Tried a more simple pattern there for now

Added

I think the current pattern's fine but it could be a little easier,though idk what to do. Also that's not a rule,it's a guideline. It's just recommended I don't do it

the guidelines are a bit more than "just recommended"
To quote the RC:
"Guidelines: Guidelines may be ignored under exceptional circumstances. These exceptional circumstances must be justified by an exhaustive explanation as of why the guideline has been ignored and why not ignoring it will interfere with the overall quality of the creation"
And my main issue is not that this is against rc, but that i feel its a major difficulty spike. The rc i quoted there was just what the RC feels should be the hardest you should make the pattern, however this pattern is another level above that. I dont think its a bad pattern or wrong for the section, but that its too hard for an insane, and would fit better in an EX diff or similar.

reopening bc this person is right, you have to have a good reason to break a guideline and i dont really think this sound justifies making a pattern this difficult out of nowhere.

Eh,I guess I'll change it

Decided not to add anything for emphasis there

can you explain why? the sounds are very prominent and it feels empty. what exactly are you emphasizing by mapping nothing?

Silence/no notes can be used to give emphasis and attention to the song, it's a valid choice and makes very little difference here.

Re Prot: That is not answering the question at all. Crisper is asking WHAT newband is trying to emphasize. HOW sacrificing notes which are extremely prominent will improve the overall emphasis of the pattern.

Your statement is barely scraping the definition of emphasis, and not a reason. Crisper's concerns are valid and should not be simply brushed off as "for emphasis", a proper elaboration/justification here is required.

From my personal pov I do not see a reason as to ignore the initial two notes. They hold the same intensity as the later ones, and should be represented with the same density of notes instead of outright just ignoring them. I see no loss of "emphasis", both as a player and mapper.

I was going for emphasizing these two LN's: 00:43:866 (43866|3,43949|2) and like I said, the emptiness of that section is intentional. A short pause draws more attention to these two LN's, hence why I call this an emphasis

Don't think there's a distinct sound there so I left it empty

there definitely is a distinct sound here and you should remove 00:45:449 (45449|2) - this note because its a ghost note

this applies to every other instance of this sound being missed and a note being placed 1/4 later as a ghost note

Yeah that clears it up

See #1385176

#1385176

#1385176

Guess that's fair,was weird to play too

#1385176

#1385176

#1385176

Added

There were a few triples there but it made playing it way harder than it should be so I had to simplify the pattern. I've changed some of the notes to triple,though

It'd make it inconsistent with 00:53:699 (53699|2,53699|3,53783|2,53783|3) so I'll pass

00:53:699 (53699|2,53699|3,54033|3,54033|2) - why don't you move these to [12]? i think this is too large of a difficulty spike

I think it's fine rn,don't think it's too big of a spike

00:54:533 (54533|3) - is for the "vocal" and 00:54:533 (54533|0) - is for all other sounds. I decided to go with LN's cause I think it'd be awkward to play if I had to put jacks while you hold a LN

I reviewed this moment and you are absolutely right.

It's not as underwhelming as you make it out to be imo considering the player is just coming off from 00:52:866 - which is really straining with the minijacks and triples. Giving them a brief rest is fine.

Pretty much what prot said

Adding the kicks as notes would be pretty uncomfortable to play so I won't add them

See #1385176

See #1385176

See #1385176

Added

See #1385176

See #1385176

Done

01:03:949, 01:03:699, 01:04:116 - and here

I left them out intentionally because if I did add the kicks,it'd be very hard to play

If you rearange the pattern like this if could be done, though I don't think you need a double at 01:03:949 -

*it

I changed 01:03:449 to that pattern,however I haven't touched the other timestamps due to difficulty reasons

"difficulty reasons" How? This isn't even close to the hardest part of the whole chart, it's just as difficult as the other buildup patterns. Vincus' suggestion with 01:04:116 doesn't change the difficulty at all.

Could remove the LN at 01:04:033 (64033|3) - and add a note at 01:04:116 - but it doesn't really make a difference in gameplay since it's just a single note.

I think removing the LN here would make the patterning feel weird,as I end up stop mapping synths abruptly and get back into mapping them