01:18:597 (1,1) - pet peeve but I don't like how the first slider transitions into the second, it looks pretty stale to me idk
Think he's talking more about the shapes rather than the spacing, in which case I agree
01:19:425 (1) just feels really mundane for such a long held sound, at least doing something like https://i.imgur.com/9Y9wcS8.png could be a bit more interesting aesthetic-wise
Or you could make a little baby mushroom slider
hi verychill since the slider is longer than previous then update the storyboard mushrooms as well?
01:38:046 (2,3,4,5,1) - this being 1/4 is a bit weird when you map the same thing as 1/6 later here 01:44:666 (5,1,1,1,1,1,1) - . could also make it 1/3 if you want to keep the rhythm density low
01:42:597 (1,2,3) - 1/4 gap usage feels really out of place to me when the rest of the intro is pretty strict 1/2 + the spacing feels a tad high
I'd maybe just shorten these sliders to 1/2 so they fit better here
01:44:735 (1,1,1,1,1,1) - I would space these slightly closer to each other to indicate the 1/6 better, I think just the NCing doesn't give enough feedback to realize it speeds up. IMO a smaller curve would be nice but any shape difference can work
why in the heck would a 5 combo stream indicate the rest is 1/6? that's one note too late, 01:44:666 (5) - should be NC.
i also second the suggestion about spacing since the combo colours are also fairly similar especially on non-default skin
01:45:908 - @morrighan This part of the build-up feels very flat. The rhythm is getting more dense but it's being mapped with a less dense rhythm here so the map becomes less intense. This also doesn't lead well into 01:52:942 - to 01:59:046 - in either rhythm or spacing, since at 01:52:942 (1) - SV goes from 0 to 100 when the song doesn't at all change that drastically. Suggest reworking the build-up to have a more gradual intensity increase (and probably end at a less intense point IMO)
01:53:460 (2,3,4) - @morrighan shift forward one 1/4 beat and end 01:52:942 (1) - at yellow tick, currently 01:53:460 (2) - is placed really misleadingly
01:55:839 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - This is an insane difficulty spike that isn't really warranted
This part of the buildup is much less intense than 01:57:080 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) so such massive 1/4 jumps between streams is super overkill, honestly feels like this patterning could use a rework as a whole
Perhaps ctrl+g on 01:56:253 (1,2,3,4) & 01:57:080 (1,2,3,4) could be a nice substitution
02:02:873 (1) - Ctrl-g could make the movement in the slider be felt more strongly I feel like, since right now it's shadowed by the big jump you have to do from 02:02:460 (1,1) -
02:09:494 (1) - I think this slidershape feels a bit out of place compared to your previous ones, other designs were more "wavy" if that makes sense, changing it to feel less jagged can fit what you're trying to do here better I feel like
02:30:080 (1,2,3) - 02:31:735 (1,2,3) - 02:33:391 (1,2,3) - 02:40:011 (1,2) - @bongo @stratos these are all different takes on this idea, and all are different from the initial take 02:11:873 (1,2,1) - . Think this could be done more consistently (last one is 'worst' IMO), personally I thought the back and forth version made the most sense musically.
02:31:735 (1,2,3) - I feel like this angle is too wide, if you compare it to all the other patterns of the same sound in this section, it doesn't catch the "back & forth" feeling of the sound as well as the others.
Compared to: 02:30:080 (1,2,3) - 02:33:391 (1,2,3) - 02:36:701 (1,2,3) - 02:38:356 (1,2,3) -
02:37:632 (1) - this slidershape feels a bit out of place, this whole section has been repeated straight sliders and I feel like if it more or less mirrored the past slider it would look sick and a bit more aesthetically pleasing
02:50:460 (2,2) - Wouldn't an NC on both of these fit your NC structure better? since you seemed to do them on all the previous sliders aswell
Assuming the second (2) refers to 02:53:770 (2) -, yeah that makes more sense. I'll poke chill to do it
02:58:735 (1,1,2,3,1,2,1) - You've got a very clear buildup in the music here so this stuff could probably use some sort of spacing buff, feels a bit mundane compared to stuff like 02:57:701 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3)
03:00:597 (1,2,3,4) - As well
Or at least avoid really crunchy patterning for stuff like 03:00:391 (1,1,2,3,4) as it feels really constricted
03:02:046 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1) - idk if its just me but I'm having real issues reading this, feels like a really read/memory heavy part and I think it could probably be nerfed while conveying a similar feel, I guess stacking these 03:02:666 (1,1,1,1) - on the sliderheads coming after them? but you can probably think of something cooler
I advocate to arranging them like https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/17068641/4b49 since the current pattern exists in a conceptual vacuum compared to the rest of the map
03:08:046 (1) - This sound starts much later than 03:08:046, head should be snapped more around 03:08:149 ish
03:21:080 (1) - I feel like 8 sv is a bit much here LOL, it's not unplayable but you have to rush to the middle in order to not sliderbreak I feel like, something like 6 would be much more managable IMO and wouldn't cause frustrating breaks midmap
Amazing part, 03:31:839 (1) - -> 07:46:322 (1) - . The flow, the visuals, this slowdown 07:19:839 (1) -, the speedup stream stacks. It works so well! Good shit
Extremely minor but it bothers me every time I look at the map.
03:35:149 (1,2,3,4,5) - & 03:38:460 (1,2,3,4,5) - these repeat sliders aren't aliened with the stream perfectly. Like these are 03:41:770 (1,2,3,4,5) - 03:45:080 (1,2,3,4,5) -
03:35:977 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - 03:37:632 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - 03:39:287 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - @naru these all have wildly different intensities for a part of the song that sounds relatively the same. I think a nice concept here could be to focus on 4-note groups with more gradual increases or decreases in spacing (03:42:597 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - this type of grouping also works in places).
03:45:908 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - Why normal sample for these?
They're pretty much identical to 03:40:942 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) 03:42:597 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) so just just spamming whistles like the others should be fitting enough
when i mapped this originally i tried to map the drums but any consistent way of mapping them ended up being too intense for my liking which is why i mapped it the way i did
if anyone has any specific ideas on how to incorporate the drums im open to suggestions, but i dont mind it as is
https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/17030223/45ba can just do this rhythm with low spacing patterning like in image... mapping non-spaced doubles is extremely low intensity in contrast to the fact many of these doubles are super spaced elsewhere in the map
thats what i meant by "feels disconnected from the music". when i do that it just seems like the map isnt really following the song, but instead following the sounds. like for example if i map any of the drums stuff like 04:02:460 (2) - feels so off, but mapping over that sound with just drums is so monotonous
How about a makeshift filler rhythm like https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/17075152/5275 timestamp of screenshot 04:03:494 -
#2568873
this also leads me into this part 04:14:873 - , which is a very high contrast in difficulty to the last one. 04:15:908 (3,4,5,6,7,8) - these movements look pretty ruff, maybe you could think of a better way for these parts? rhytmically its fine it just feels like an unnecessary spacing spike
04:27:908 (1) - Burai here is pretty unreadable for people with skins that don't draw tails
04:41:356 - this part does the job but visually it looks a bit underwhelming, you use consistent objects in isolation but it still looks like you don't have an idea of what you want to convey here. Perhaps doing something more interesting with these 04:48:184 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - and not having them so different
04:51:287 (1,1,2,3,1,2,1,2,1) - this part is nice tho
04:44:873 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - @defectum would switch spacing order on these, seems backward right now
04:48:184 (1,2,3) - 04:49:632 (1,2,3) - @defectum These should probably have the same type of idea somehow.
04:54:804 (2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - not a big fan of these compact overlaps, we go from a previously slow section to this powerful buildup, I feel like you could make it a bit more difficult or spaced in general. Try to make use of the strong snares like these 04:55:011 - and maybe emphasize them with spacing and see how it plays
05:00:908 (3) - could probably delete this? and would love some more emphasis on 05:00:804 (2) - . perhaps a jump from 1 to 2 like this http://puu.sh/I6O4f/e335e1a358.jpg
Idk why I marked this as a problem lol, should be suggestion
05:01:891 (3) - this slider kinda misses the rhythm here, it should at least start on the blue tick imo and be a single repeat slider or something like that
05:03:287 (2,3,4,5,6) - I feel like this part misses a really nice rhythm, I'd almost prefer this whole part be circles with proper emphasis on the percussions kinda like this https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/16992970/0136
Doesn't have to be exactly like this, maybe you can use some more sliders but I really would like to see more emphasis on the percussions
gameplay is fine imo, except for this imo 05:08:563 (2,1,2) - which has 2 fast snaps in row (compare to 05:11:873 (2,1,2) - where first gap is much much smaller)
structure of some patterns could be improved to make it more intuitive though:
05:10:425 (2,5) - stack (see 05:15:391 (3,3) - )
05:10:425 (2,4,1) - could make these sliders follow pattern logic like 05:10:425 (2,4,1) -
05:15:391 (3,2,1) - same
+1
Virtually unhittable for someone who isn't familiar enough with the map, sv should be decreased by a decent amount
I think it's fine. You could consider it a concept expansion of Fisky part fast buzz idea 02:07:839 (1) - etc
05:09:494 (1) - 05:12:804 (1) - personally think you should change those to the smaller reverse slider you did at 05:16:115 (1) - , would be way cooler imo
nvm due to popular demand and my own opinion imma revert 05:09:494 (1) - and 05:12:804 (1) - to not reverse slider unless my mind changes again.
05:14:873 (1,2,1,2) - i think the flow here should be something like the others (like 05:18:287 (2,1,2,1,2) ) because it felt a bit off when playing the map. A flow similar to this? https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/17073287/9237 also good job on mapping cause overall its really nice visually and gameplay wise!
05:21:080 - while the same "part" of the song, this one is very different from the previous, which is fine imo but I'd like it to transition a bit better. maybe lower SV on these sliders 05:22:735 (1) - like werf did? maybe you can think of something better than what I did idk
05:22:735 (1) - & 05:26:046 (1) - & 05:29:356 (1) - opinions/thoughts on changing sv on these to ~2.6 and potentially add hitsounds to the sliderend? imo it sounds and plays better to not have it offbeat because it follows hihat + bass which the previous 2 sliders also follow
05:30:322 (1,1) - I don't like the use of NC here, the placement tells you there's a gap in the timeline, which there isn't. I think removing both of these will make this rhythm easier to read.
05:33:411 (5,1) - this gap also sucks imo, having to do a cut into the next pattern makes less sense than the stream ending on the first note of the new pattern
05:30:322 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,6) - These 1/6 sounds really aren't all that strong + suddenly swapping away from the electric guitar feels like an odd choice when this entire section seems to revive around it
I'd either nerf the 1/6 density in here maybe with a reverse or gut this altogether and just follow the guitar
I genuinely don't see the issue with this pattern or rhythm. There's repeated use of 1/6 (might not be a lot but when it's in the song I have mapped it) its not difficult compared to other sections so its not a diff spike, and it follows the structure of the section. Dumbing it down with repeats wont fit the intensity and ignoring it would break consistency.
05:32:666 (1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5) - NCing these the same like at 05:19:425 (1,1,1,1,1,1) - would help ease confusion I feel like
05:34:322 (1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1) - @Hysteria I appreciate the idea of this bit, but it feels really shallow to have 15 seconds with a grand total of two distinct object placements and a spinner on a weak sound. There's plenty of placefield to place mushrooms elsewhere, and I'd do completely away with the spinner (maybe put a non-mushroom slider there?)
I personally believe that the simplicity of the current section is a nice addition to an otherwise pretty technical and advanced map. It's a nice break that fits the theme of the mapping and the sounds that are mapped (there's only two different synth noises, both represented by two difference shrooms). The spinner is also in my opinion the most fitting thing for the sound its covering, a slider wouldnt fit and as written earlier the entire idea of the section is it to break the nonsimple design of the rest of the map.
06:02:460 (1) - I appreciate the SHROOM but I feel this SV is really out of place, if you wanna shroom perhaps do like hysteria did here 05:35:977 (1) -
No I placed these circle SB elements in correlation to the direction the sound came from (to me at least). Hopefully as you get further into the song it makes sense.
The first one 05:59:977 (1) - does set the expectations you have, so I get where you're coming from.
06:20:149 (1,2) - Really not into such a harsh 1/4 jump after the break at 06:20:149 (1,2)
Moght be better to lower spacing between 06:20:149 (1,2) or stack them
@werf
I agree. Past 06:27:287 - the rest of the buildup is mostly flowaim with some much less spaced snaps. It makes more sense to save more snappy snaps for the chorus.
All other problem 1/4 instances:
06:15:597 (7,1) - funny enough this is where the snap works the best
06:16:839 (5,6) -
06:18:908 (4,1) - this is actually sooo rough
06:22:218 (7,1) -
06:23:460 (5,6) -
06:26:046 (1,2) -
06:26:460 (1,2,3) - could nerf the triangle spacing a bit too to help make the similar triangles in liiraye part better stand out (like 06:41:977 (1,2,1) - 06:43:632 (1,2,1) - )
06:40:528 (1,1) - these being 1/8 while 06:43:839 (1,1) - these are 1/16 is Very Cool and Nice
06:45:287 (3) - The jump to here from the last note is a bit too much imo...I know it's the buildup and I like tasteful emphasis like these, but nerfing it a bit will be less of a jumpscare while still being tasteful.
06:48:804 (1,1,2,3,4,1,2) - this transition is really awkward to grok because of 06:48:804 (1,1,2,3,4,1) - overlap for non-obvious number of beats followed by odd-rhythm cutstreams 06:49:425 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - . I would move both 06:48:804 (1) - and 06:49:425 (1) - to different locations
06:53:356 (2) - In my opinion the 6x SV on this takes away a lot of the emphasis from the buildup, it's cool but there's a lot of empty space between it and the rest of the kiai (06:53:461 to 06:53:769) where you don't do anythingwhile playing, it removes a lot of the "impact" the buildup had. I would do something like 2x and snap it to 1/4 blue tick, would make it feel way more powerful.
https://i.imgur.com/8NcB9dr.jpeg Hope this shows it, and yeah I meant a 3/4 slider. I'm aware it's a conscious choice so it's no worries if you wanna keep, I just think a 3/4 slider will compliment the buildup better.
Gotcha, mm for now I'll keep it. Reason I think it fits better this way is because the song kinda stops at the 1/4, with a hard drum and a swooping sound that I tried to replicate with the slidershape, I could perhaps nerf the SV a bit if it's too hard but the 1/4 length is how I wanted it.
maybe this bit could feel better (at least when replaying) if 06:53:770 (1) - part somehow started near the end of the big slider
+1 on this
I'd maybe even go lower than xilver suggested and do a 1/8 gap ie. https://i.imgur.com/SVP14di.png
The reason I disagree with making the slider longer is because this section 06:53:511 - to 06:53:718 - is just the after-effect of the "snappy" sound the current slider is following. Rn I think it works well as a transition into the kiai because of how it just suddenly "breaks" after the buildup. I would probably agree more to werfs suggestion about making the kiai start under the fast slider instead if that causes some confusion, but that would require @Zer0- 's input.
could ctrl-h 06:52:115 (1,1,2,1,2,1,2) - , make 06:53:356 (2) - face down and move stuff a bit for this outcome: https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/17413858/d155
My take on whether to use a snappy kickslider or slow slider:
06:53:356 (2,1) - being stacked is ideal if a high sv kickslider is used (that's what my screenshot solution also addresses)
I could move around the start of the kiai to be stacked under the slider if it needs to be, and in that case I'd probably want to change the shape of the slider a bit to be less awkward than this https://i.imgur.com/N4322TY.png
07:20:253 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - This sort of comes out of nowhere, I see a lot of players getting 100s or missing here, but at the same time it's the peak of the kiai so I'd feel bad if it was gone...I would maybe suggest only making the first one a buzz slider pattern to let people prepare for the rest of the 1/6ths coming up. It's fine if you wanna keep it though, but I think it can help playability a little bit
while we're here, why is 07:20:253 (1) - when @Nowaie 's part starts have a different font compared to all of the other names in the storyboard? i have a feeling this just isnt intentional when every other name isnt the same font
07:44:046 (1,2,3,4) - i kinda thought this was about to be another burst with the way it was scrunched up, could space it out a bit more
feel free to skill issue ratio me
07:45:908 (1,2,1,2,1) - I think this angle on 07:46:115 (1,2) - , coming from the last 2 notes at 07:45:908 (1,2) - feels a bit too rough compared to the last ones. Moving it closer to 07:46:322 (1) - can help ease the emphasis you want to do while feeling less janky. ex: https://i.imgur.com/mNgE4It.jpeg
07:45:701 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1) - could even split pattern something like https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/17267546/1b65
In light of general playfield usage in nowa part https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/17267562/d6f8, ending this part in the top left corner could definitely be quite a potent thing to do.
Playfield usage is a myth
I'm generally fine with the current change, but I'd move this 07:46:322 (1) - to (203,99) for a more fluid direction change with the angles in general.
While the angle itself may not highlight the special sound anymore, the stop in the objects should do good enough of a job on emphasizing
Is this intended or a miss? 07:56:977 (2,1) - Every other slider in this section has the "Cymbal?" <- (not sure if correct term) sound while these are swapped.
07:59:149 (1,2,3,1) - How about ctrl+H on this pattern to match the same angles as the ones on 07:58:322 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - ? You could even make something cool by overlapping 07:59:460 (1) - 's tail with 07:59:977 (1) - 's head, will give the long slider more emphasis