* Erm, could it be a Spatiotemporal ShockWAVE Syndrome...?Spotlight

Applied, considering pitch height as well.

02:04:252 (124252|0,124252|3,124252|1,124252|2) -

Mmm first, I'd like to explain why I applied more intense LNs and pattern(quad) at 00:02:769 - 00:04:752 - etc.

The reason why I applied triple at 00:02:149 - was because the intensity of the chords at 00:00:786 - 00:02:769 - 00:04:752 - were the highest ones. So, I thought applying a different density would emphasize the increased intensity in chords from 00:01:777 - to 00:02:769 - .

You might be questionable on why didn't I apply the same quad at 00:00:786 - since it also had the highest chord. 00:00:765 (765|2,786|3,806|1,827|0) - these notes weren't really distant and could have the same, and more likely, more aggressive intensity due to the former notes from 00:00:538 - to 00:00:538 - which I think it'd be an appropriate emphasize.

"Also I would recommend maybe nerfing the SV here and gracing the LN ends (not too much because you want to keep it different from 00:00:806 (806|1,827|0) - which is more intense."

-> The reason why I didn't apply the similar release as 00:00:806 (806|1,827|0) -was because the instruments at 00:02:769 - had a different release of sounds, unlike 00:00:806 (806|1,827|0,1033|0) -.

The chord sound at 00:00:806 (806|1,827|0,1033|0) - releases once around 00:00:956 - and completely get released around 00:01:033 - . But the similar chord at 00:02:769 (2769|1,2769|2,2769|0,2769|3) - releases only once at 00:03:017 - . So I made a difference by applying a different releases in each chord sounds.

Comparison: https://imgur.com/a/Mnd6qcc

I had understood the reasoning behind the layering here I just disagreed with it because of the way that I think it conflicts with consistency already. Sure I think that it's fair to keep differences between 00:02:149 (2149|0,2149|1,2149|3) - and 00:02:769 (2769|3,2769|0,2769|2,2769|1) - because the latter is musically and inherently more important (more intense) but I think that the SV is already able to accomplish such without straying away too far away from a structural "root" of the sound (that being a triple chord, which is implied here 00:02:769 (2769|3,2769|0,2769|2,2769|1) - as a "pseudo chord" since the player will still feel it as a triple in a sense).

What I'm trying to say is that I think that you're actually putting too much focus into one aspect (representing different intensities) without considering the effect it has on the structure causing an imbalance of sorts. So I think that changing this slightly to rebalance them can still allow you to drastically represent the differing intensities/importances whilst keeping a "consistent" chord for the player to easily follow along with. ofc just imo

mmm oki, changed quad at 00:02:769 - 00:04:752 - into triple then

Well the short grace at 00:03:141 (3141|3,3162|2,3265|0,3286|1) - was for the expression of growling bass sound. So I'd rather keep it?

Oki sounds reasonable

1/3 jumptrill for this kind of intense sound would not emphasize the intensity of the sound enough so I think including some mini-jack would be enough emphasize.

ummm I don't really understand what u mean lol.

Well yes, I tried to emphasize the 1/3 beats by applying the inverse shield at 00:06:116 (6116|1,6488|1) - , but I don't understand what exactly you mean abt " switch column for 00:06:116 (6116|1,6116|0) ".

Just one screenshot example would be enough, can you explain why making contrast with 00:04:133 (4133|3,4484|3) - would bring any advantage in expression after you gimme the example?

ahh should've say that this is kinda subjective, you can reject if u simply doesnt feel like it https://imgur.com/a/XYzTr5l

Mmmm I think applying the 3 continuous double that using |14|->|12|->|34| feels too standard itself and doesn't fully emphasize the pitch gap.

I'll follow your suggestion but only in LN structure.

mmm I had an intention on the notes at 00:07:025 (7025|1,7066|0,7108|1,7232|0,7252|1) - . The synth sounds from 00:06:984 - to around 00:07:273 - had a repetitive pitch codes and I thought it'd be great to emphasize those repetitive pitch by applying a trill-like patterning since I thought the pitch at 00:07:025 (7025|1,7066|0,7108|1,7232|0,7252|1) - these notes were the most close code.

To hold that intention, keeping the trill would be a necessary thing to do. If you think it's not that good or thinking any better solution that following my intention on those, I'm all ears :)

wb https://imgur.com/a/bw6pTlq ?

sure, why not. Applied at 01:40:702 - as well

The offset interval from 00:07:252 to 00:07:335.. -> 7335 - 7252 = 83

Calculation of SVs in that section was..-> 7.58 x 10 + 0.55 x 73 = 115.95 which means the interval of notes in that section would be seen about 1.396987951807 times far than the actual scroll speed. Well, it was intended tho, but I guess it was too much.

I'll just normalize it.. -> 7.57 x 10 + 0.1 x 73 = 83

update https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/16710599/5935 this could work better

Mmm I think rather layering the LN from 00:07:852 - to 00:07:934 - would be better than changing them as a single LN since it'd be a duplicated expression with 00:18:265 (18265|0,18389|1,18513|2) - . Changed.

mmm but, since it has the similar melody as 00:09:959 (9959|2,10083|0) - , to follow the consistency, I think at least the sound at 00:07:976 - should be expressed in somehow. Just ignoring it won't be the best solution, I think. But I don't know how to solve this either. Any options?

its fine

You're right, 00:09:835 - had the same sound as 00:09:959 (9959|2,10083|0,10207|1) - but, considering each sound's intensity, I think the synth sound that same as 00:09:711 (9711|1,9732|3) - had more intensity that enough to ignore the sound you mentioned.

Rather, applying LN at 00:09:835 - would reduce the repetitive emphasize at 00:09:339 (9339|0,9360|3,9463|1,9484|3,9711|1,9732|3,9835|1,9856|3) - , I think.

I really don't think it would reduce the repetitive emphasis (motif) that you're trying to accomplish, I think that this pattern is already established enough throughout this section in particular as

1. it's two handed (which for players is indicative of important pattern for sound)
2. it grace's very specifically
3. it utilizes SV
   although maybe SV would make the LN too hard to pattern in properly, what do you think?

Well I can edit the SV if I apply the LN at 00:09:835 - eventually but, I'm just thinking that having an additional visual(LN) while the 00:09:711 (9711|1,9732|3,9835|1,9856|3) - already had a clear emphasis in normal notes would be unnecessary but rather fading the expression.

yabai

01:01:219 (61219|3,61230|2,61310|3,61321|2,61401|0,61412|1,61492|0,61503|1,61582|3,61594|2) - 23ms long note; maybe also extend this a little

Agree here, I think short LNs here jeopardize the gameplay experience and serve little purpose in expressing and showing players the actual length of each sound

00:10:434 - Extended into 1/6 length of LN

01:01:230 - to 01:01:594 - , extended into 34ms length of LN, changed SV a bit as well.

(Formula from 01:01:264 - to 01:01:673 -)

Offset interval from 01:01:264 - to 01:01:310 - = 46

242/330 = 0.7333333333333

46 x 0.73 = 33.58

7.24 x 4 + 0.11 x 42 = 33.58

It'd be controversial in each players subjective standards if I express any sounds before start of the bass from 00:11:075 - so I'd take safer way.

01:15:669 similar

Since I applied 1/2 mini-jack at 00:12:314 (12314|1,12438|1) - to emphasize the vocal while keep expressing the piano sound, will do the same thing from 00:11:695 - to 00:11:819 - but also keeping the LN at 00:11:695 - like this: https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/16988106/3350

Applied from 01:15:545 - to 01:15:793 - as well.

They're quite intentionally nerfed to express the vocal effect on 00:14:670 (14670|2) - so I'd rather keep that way to let players notice that I'm emphasizing the sound at 00:14:670 (14670|2) - by putting only one LNs.

Deleted

moved double at 00:18:141 - into col2 and col3

applied

The melody itself is similar but the waveform of the synth sounds were mirrored if you listen carefully. The former one had the waveform that decreasing after the highest waveform at the start, and the latter one had the waveform that increasing and gets the highest waveform at the last.

I'd reject this suggestion since the reason why I made a different shape at 00:19:876 - unlike any other LNs was because the type and length of synth sound changes a bit at 00:19:876 -.

But also the following synth at 00:20:000 - doesn't really matching with the synth sound at 00:19:876 - which shouldn't be the same shape unlike any other LNs nearby which I've put the repetitive structure since those consecutive synth sounds were the same type.

mmm yea, I think it'd be less controversial, kinda shame tho :') Will change 00:19:876 (19876|2,19892|1) - into rice.

Applied at 00:23:843 - , 00:27:810 - 01:31:789 - as well

00:31:777 - here as well

00:23:983 (23983|1,24009|3) - same

rearranged by applying same snap

Sure but, I don't know which LNs should be extended. Any example with some explanation would be much appreciated :')

https://imgur.com/a/gjeOUX7 what do you think of this? :3c

sure, but I'll extend 00:20:620 (20620|1) - till 00:20:703 - too since it'd be tricky with the other releases if I leave it as 1/4 LN

The synth sounds from 00:21:922 - to 00:22:046 - starting to have more additional synth sounds from 00:21:984 - . The synth sound at 00:21:984 - gets an additional, similar synth sounds and 00:22:046 - gets more aggressive synth sounds while 00:21:922 - didn't really have much.

I think the synth sound at 00:21:984 - is more... friendly with 00:21:922 (21922|0) - than 00:22:046 (22046|1) - .

sure

I think applying double would make the expression consistent with the double at 00:23:983 (23983|1,24009|3) - . Rearranged a little tho.

Mmmm I think the sudden break at 00:22:480 - is worth emphasizing with a 31ms shield which I don't think it'd be an unreasonable spike but more like a reasonable emphasize. I'll keep this suggestion opened to listen to any other player's opinion.

I think at least applying a shield for this sudden break is necessary whether the interval between 00:22:449 - and 00:22:480 - eventually gets shortened or not.

A lot of patterns in this map are way less doable to 300g consistently mostly thanks to LN and SV mixed together, so I don't think this pattern in isolation is a big deal.
Though I have suggestion here that I think helps both sides of argument here. I think https://imgur.com/a/kw9RDe8 something like this works better as it represents the sudden break as well as the other sound (00:22:542 -) with fast release. It also mitigates and issues players might have with weird releases like that (though again I don't think the current pattern was very hard to 300g consistently). I also think it highlight difference in chord structure between this 00:22:232 - chord and 00:22:356 - this chord :3c, just some food for thought if you want to incorporate!

Mmm I think at least the double LN at 00:22:356 - shouldn't be released at the same timeline. The reason why I released one of the LN at 00:22:108 (22108|3,22263|2,22356|0) -a bit later was that the release of synth sounds at those timings wasn't cut directly but fade.

So it'd be inconsistent if I release the double LN at 00:22:356 - at the same timeline.

The reason why I didn't apply the same LN at 00:22:480 (22480|0,22480|3) - was to emphasize the interval between the chord at 00:22:480 - and 00:22:852 - this chord, just like as guden said.

I'll leave it as open

meh wutever

By keeping the offset position from 00:22:480 ~ 00:22:852, I'd suggest the following changes for the SV value: 0.2x -> 0.6x -> 0.9x -> 1.1x -> 1.3x. This is certainly not normalized but I think normalizing should not be applied here since the gap here is larger than 1/1 beat. You may twist around with these values but it'll be better if you keep the main idea as mentioned above.
(2)

mmmm ok why not owo

I think mirroring the pattern from 00:23:100 - to 00:23:735 - to make a difference with the pattern from 00:19:133 - to 00:19:768 - would be an unreasonable change since those synth sounds were the same which doesn't need to be a different shape.

Back to the main point of this suggestion, I admit that the pattern at 00:24:587 (24587|1,24628|0) - and 00:20:620 (20620|1,20662|0) - should had more different shape.

I'll just change the pattern from 00:20:620 - to 00:20:868 - to make a difference with 00:24:587 (24587|2,24587|1,24628|0) - .

Rather not to since the intensity of the synth sound at 00:21:488 (21488|1,21503|2,21519|3,21534|0) - is much stronger than 00:24:680 - , I'd reduce the LN density and make it lighter to emphasize the contrast.

oki

01:58:055 (118055|0,118055|1) -

Yea I think this one must be extended as 01:58:055 (118055|0,118055|1) - . This one's my mistake. Will extend 00:25:331 - as 01:58:055 (118055|0,118055|1) -.

Would rather emphasize the synth sound at 00:25:579 - by ignoring that sound as a none.

01:34:764 (94764|1,94764|3,94764|0) -

01:53:716 (113716|2,113716|3,113716|0) -

02:08:576 (128576|3,128576|1,128576|0,128916|1,128916|3,128916|0) - Especially here because the sound is slowing down

Alright. In addition, the actual snap at 00:25:951 - 00:26:199 - was 1/12 so, I'll resnap them as well.

# Formula from 00:25:827 - to 00:25:971 -

-> 25971 offset - 25827 offset = 144 offset.
-> 0.220+0.640+1.140+1.340+5*4 = 144 offset.

# From 00:25:971 - to 00:26:033 - , 01:53:737 - to 01:53:799 -

-> 26033 - 25971 = 62
-> 8.846+0.1656 = 62

# From 00:26:033 - to 00:26:219 - , 01:53:799 - to 01:53:985 -

-> 26219 - 26033 = 186
-> 0.226+0.420+0.620+0.820+1.120+1.2420+1.520+1.740 = 186

# From 01:34:764 - to 01:34:825 -

-> 94825 - 94764 = 61
-> 242 BPM / 121 BPM = 2 , 612 = 122
-> 1011+0.24*50 = 122

# From 02:08:576 - to 02:08:637 - , 02:08:916 - to 02:08:977 -

-> 128637 - 128576 = 61
-> 242 BPM / 121 BPM = 2 , 612 = 122
-> 1011+0.24*50 = 122

Well the current release at 00:26:571 (26571|0,26571|1) - should flow into the left side so the pattern can express the decreasing intensity of synth sound from 00:26:571 - to 00:26:653 - which is rising up from 00:26:694 - again.

Therefore, the shield at 00:26:694 (26694|0) - was also intended one to make a contrast for the expression of synth sound's intensity.

sure

Applied at 01:58:509 - as well

00:27:252 (27252|2,27330|2) - This kind of stack was to give some intensity like 00:27:438 (27438|3,27578|3) - , rather than spreading every grace's column, applying some mini-jack appropriately would eventually fit better, even though It might make some issues for the consistency about applying mini-jacks in this section, I think it's worth to argue.

emmmmmmmmmm you're right. But let me find some alternative pattern in 00:30:166 (30166|3,30228|1) - that mixes the expression but not too much

Applied 1/12 LNs and 1/4 LNs (242BPM) instead. watcha think?

looks ok but seems a bit heavy on col 4, you could do this https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/17013097/407e. The rice and LNs highlighted are like an improvisation and I ctrl+g the grace to make it comfier.

Well, your example goes heavy on col 2 instead. What if I move the LN at 00:30:166 - into col 1?

my intention was to keep the 2-hand trill motion but this seems fine so ok

Mmm would prefer not to since if I add notes for the silence, it'd make a bunch of inconsistencies since mostly I ignored this kind of sudden silence as a none.

oki applied

The reason why I released these notes earlier was to express the actual release of that synth sound starting 00:36:033 - .

Those short LNs are already applying reverse stutter in each release already (9.08 - 0.30 - 0.21 |accelerate| -> |decelerate| and then accelerate again from 00:40:019 - .

I think uniting the type of SVs between 00:39:960 - and 00:40:456 - should be consistent since they're all repetitive melody. Emphasizing the intensity gap of those sounds were already done by applying a different acceleration.

Well tbh that's the intention on these patterns since there's nothing else except those synth sounds. If I only apply two normal notes in each grace, it'd feel too lighter than its intensity. I think it'd be worth emphasizing in triple, considering the sounds' intensity.

I think SV can already convey that, I think the three notes each grace is a bit excessive still and I also think that using two notes allows you to use more combination of graces to convey the different buried sounds here? It's up to you so if still not change after this you can resolve

SV does convey the expression but, the following intensity of notes should be combined in the most appropriate way. So I think holding a three note graces would be better in this case since if I apply two notes for those graces, they'd give more chance to distinguish more combination of patterning, but it would also give a less emphasis but also duplicates with 00:31:204 (31204|1,31219|3,31297|0,31312|1,31436|2,31452|0,31545|1,31560|2) - .

1/64 SNAPS ARE HOT

"I think you should extend these LNs because the sound is much more lengthen and dramatic"

-> I think I didn't understand what does 'dramatic' exactly mean but also.. 'quirky'.

00:42:938 (42938|2,43103|1,43186|2) - these LNs for the vocal sample that released on each end of its sound. So, errrrr I'd like to hear what exactly you want me to extend and what for :3

in this context dramatic just means that the sound is more drawn out and a lot more pronounced (like a squeal? specifically referring to this sound 00:42:938 (42938|3) - you're representing with this LN)

00:42:938 (42938|2,43103|1,43186|2) - I didn't know that this was for vocal XD i should've listened closer

But i do have another suggestion:
What do you think about adding LN like this https://imgur.com/a/bVMMC17 ?

sure

I believe simplifying even this kind of simple pattern to comfort players would harm the quality itself.

They're for the additional vocal sample around 00:53:954 - that saying "Drop", thought it'd be better if I emphasize the release of that sample than applying a thin LNs.

ok

The synth sound at 00:56:863 - had more long release while the same synth sound at 00:55:409 - releases quite fast in exact 00:55:590 - so, I applied more LNs at 00:56:863 - only to emphasize the gap of release in sounds.

Of course, applying LNs holding a 4 column would be heavier than necessary but, considering playing the united 1/6 flow with the united 1/12 release flow at 00:57:060 - , I think at least it won't feel heavy either, considering the fast BPM as well.

And I intentionally left 01:02:692 - in blank cuz if I apply any similar graces in any column, it won't match with the sudden break of synth sounds releasing nearby 01:02:692 - so, rather, applied stutter SVs for it.

If I cut that LN into 1/12, it'd emphasize the instrument, indeed. But considering the intense part from 00:54:318 - to 00:57:918 - , it'd be too invisible to catch but make acc into ass ;w;

mmmkay. applied

I think just applying 1/1 LN wouldn't emphasize the aftershock synth sounds near by 00:58:943 - 00:59:307 - . I'd rather apply 2/7 dump and |2/3|5/6| LN like this : https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/17011656/1f45

What do you think about this?

looks good

I don't think 1/16 would affect playability nor the expression but it emphasizes the particular sound that only can be heard at 01:00:138 - appropriately imo.

Automatically solved after #2558037

ok

Ok, will move a single note at 01:10:256 - in col 1 into col 2 as well.

79925 - 79883 = 42

8.32 x 5 + 0.01 x 39 = 41.99

Changed