beatmap discussion
Everyone
_Reset
-DylanOsu-
[-Roxas-]
[GB]Rick
[GB]SuddenDeath
8230
Aljotzi
Alter-
AverageBoi
Bantay
Bei
Carpihat
chana
chy030_ft_pH5_6
Decku
Domajnyk Pear
eZmmR
FLeVI
Furryswan
gzdongsheng
IAMREALTEAMBRO
Jeno
kilotek
LotusAngel707
Mango0307
Monoseul
My Angel Chen
N4iveDx
NamelessFanatic
natsume umi
Neon-Hooray
pashalka
Polytetral
riunosk
Seiran-
Sillot
Skibidi Toilet
Slick6969
snomi
SUNec4_
the blue frawog
V1do-
Vincus
Virtue-
Vlinaesant
Worthlessnut9
New Discussion
Please sign in to post or reply
Timestamp
ctrl-c in edit mode and paste in your message to add a timestamp!
PraiseSuggestionProblem
Discussions
Sort by
00:08:658
00:08:928
00:08:928 (8928|3,8945|2) - seems a double was better , as 00:15:415 (15415|2,15415|1) - , for consistent
Last edited by 8230 .
00:08:928
00:08:928 (8928|3) - things like 00:08:928 (8928|3) - 00:09:739 (9739|2) - 00:10:550 (10550|0) - etc, in actual performance method, these sound is hold until 00:09:199 - next sound. so better to extend them to be 1/1.
00:09:199
00:10:820
00:10:820 - i find its a little indecisive whether you want each 2 flam groupings to be the same or not (eg. 00:14:064 (14064|0,14334|0) are the same while 00:13:253 (13253|3,13523|0) isnt), it would look more organized to have it either all different or all the same
00:11:091
00:14:604
00:14:604 (14604|0,14604|2,14672|3,14672|1) - should be single notes, as their intensity of piano sounds were not as intense as the former piano chord sounds. Plus, the grace note at 00:14:874 (14874|2,14891|0) - should feel independent than less intense piano chords.
00:14:874
00:14:874 (14874|1,14891|2,14942|3) - this is kinda awkward tbh because the main idea is the 24 trill which is a great representation, but 00:14:891 (14891|2) - this particular note is breaking the flow from what i've played. would suggest to move 00:14:891 (14891|2) - to 1st col (1|2|3|4) to keep maintaining the 24 trill.
same as 00:15:162 (15162|2) -
02:04:873 - same
just move 02:04:873 (124873|2) - to 1st col (1|2|3|4) and 02:04:806 (124806|0) - to 4th
Marked as resolved by kilotek
00:15:595
00:15:595 (15595|3,15595|0,15618|1,15618|2,15685|0,15702|3,15719|2) - considering the given intensity of the melody and sounds, this would be obviously considered as a sudden spike, which wasn't appropriate in terms of expression. I personally don't really think the sounds at 00:15:595 (15595|0,15595|3,15618|1,15618|2,15820|1) - were even worth expressing in single normal notes, under the situation that other major sounds were being expressed in the same rice notes.
Last edited by Furryswan .
Removing 00:15:595 (15595|0,15595|3,15618|1,15618|2,15820|1) - would be the best answer, imo, as the beginning section didn't really try providing enough contrast in expressing different sounds. But I could say at least nerfing 00:15:595 (15595|0,15595|3,15618|1,15618|2,15820|1) -'s note density would be necessary, from general point of view.
Marked as resolved by kilotek
00:17:577
bro.... choose whether do you want the pattern to look like 00:17:577 (17577|3,17594|1) - or 00:17:307 (17307|1,17324|3) -. because the current pattern is breaking the consistency for the similar sound that you've made like 00:16:496 (16496|0,16513|3,16766|0,16783|3) -
00:17:577 (17577|3,17594|1) - and 00:17:307 (17307|1,17324|3) -. are on purpose since the 1/2 notes are the piano, for PR
I agree with virtue 50/50, your response makes sense, following the piano, but take a look at 00:10:009 (10009|2,10026|0,10280|2,10297|0) - where the grace notes are same, but the piano is different pitches which counters your reasoning.
I'd suggest something like
Try something like this for and implement for all grace notes here in the beginning, perhaps it'll work for both virtues and kiloteks reasonings.
Marked as resolved by kilotek
00:20:280
00:20:550
00:20:550 (20550|0,20550|2,20685|1,20820|2,20820|3,21091|0,21091|1,21091|3,21631|3,21631|0) - I think the releases here could be used better to express the sounds playing. It's pretty misleading having 00:20:685 (20685|1) - be as long as it is, making it easily confused as part of the piano melody instead of the rising sound. And it muddles the impact of 00:21:631 (21631|0,21631|3), which is a noticeably stronger sound transitioning to the next musical segment.
Suggestion:
Marked as resolved by kilotek
According to Monoseul, I think LN can be used to start from here 00:20:280 - ，00:20:685 - and this rice 00:20:685 (20685|1) - could be deleted.
gave a quantitative reference like this, depending on the strength of the mix
https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/18715224/3c3b
Reopened by chy030_ft_pH5_6
Marked as resolved by kilotek
00:21:597
00:21:597
00:21:631
From 00:21:631 - to 00:34:064 - and I could see lots of unnecessary 1/2 LN jumps while holding long LNs and they feel rather dragging unnecessary constant flow than actually they're expressing something. 
I guess you wanted to push such patterns as a "style", which I don't agree but also respect to not inturrupt.
Tho, I think such 1/2 LN jumps while holding other LNs longer than 1/2 should have been applied according to actual sounds, not randomely putting all over.
For instance, applying LNs at 00:22:307 - was fine, as some small snare sound was applied there, but I doubt applying LNs at 00:21:901 (21901|3,22037|3) - 00:23:658 (23658|2) - 00:24:672 (24672|3) - 00:25:280 (25280|2,25280|3) - etc were even expressing sounds, compared to the main instruments and consecutive drum(bass?) sounds.
Even if there were any sounds in those timelines, they did not work well with other same LN patterns expressing more intense and important instruments, as LNs were all bound up into the same shape, as you extend every long note's length as much as you can.
Applying the 1/2 LN jump can be accepted as a style, of course. But you have definitely expressed too many different sounds into 1/2 LNs and the LNs I mentioned there — I rather think they were just ghost notes than notes expressed actual sounds though — have made this part too unnecessary and stressful, due to the many hold of LNs.
In conclusion, either the concept of LN's holding such as 00:21:901 (21901|0,21901|1,22037|3,22172|1,22307|2,22442|3,22442|0) - should be completely removed to follow your basis of 1/2 LN jumps or unnecessary 1/2 ghost notes should be totally removed to consistently expressing actual sounds without dragging players under the waste of note density.
the ghost notes are sort of intentional because i was originally going for a dumpy aproach for the sake of difficulty, which in hindsight wasnt the best of decisions from a charting perspective, i've removed these and replaced them with a longer ln from the jump/quad that would be behind the 1/2 ln
Marked as resolved by kilotek
i've also replaced osu://edit/00:21:901 (21901|0,21901|1,22037|3,22172|1,22307|2,22442|3,22442|0) with a single note on the 1/2 jump
00:21:901
00:21:901
00:21:901 (21901|1) - is there any reason why this LN is ended using 1/12? i mean isn't this LN represent the same sound as 00:21:901 (21901|2) -? if yes, it is weird to see and play different pattern although both of them representing the same sound.
i actually thought about this, however
- its 1/12 because that way all the releases are 1/4 long for consistency,
- wouldnt it be a bit wierd since the vocal and loud cymbal-esque sound are very long aswell?
i will resolve since i personally think this is fine as is, but lmk if you dont agree
Marked as resolved by kilotek
00:21:901
00:21:901 (21901|3,21901|2,21901|1,21946|0,21991|3,22037|2) - In order to put my point across for this I need to bring up other instances where a similar combination of choir + crash sounds are used, such as 01:46:225 (106225|1,106225|2,106225|0)
Aside from a singular bell that differentiates the later chord from the dump in question, the quality of the sounds used are similar, and I don't think they really warrant that different of an approach. the sound quality of the choir and crashes combined is relatively linear.
TLDR? you could just use a singular staggered release chord to make emphasis to the sounds like the 01:46:225 one.
Same goes for 00:25:145 , 00:28:388, 00:31:631, etc till 00:34:874.
hm.
do you think using the bell/choir representation i used for 00:21:901 (21901|3,21901|2,21901|1,21946|0,21991|3,22037|2,22104|1) - would be more appropiate on 01:46:225? i wouldnt rlly wanna nerf down the first kiai
Marked as resolved by kilotek
00:21:901
00:21:901 - 00:25:145 - 00:28:388 - 00:31:631 - 00:32:442 - personally I don't really like these bursts. I know they are mapped to the vocal sound in the background, but to me they feel like playing nothing and especially the first burst doesn't feel like a comfortable transition from the previous part at all, including the minijack. Overall I think these burst feel like they are overmapped, because this section isn't very intense to begin with.
Im going to chime in here and say that the transition from rice to full ln inverse is very very unwarranted in this regard.
I really do not see why these drums 00:22:172 (22172|3,22172|0,22307|3,22307|0) - 00:22:172 (22172|0,22172|3,22307|0,22307|3,22577|1,22847|0,22847|2,22847|3) - etc. all need to use full ln. It seems to be there for the sake of it (also 00:22:780 (22780|1) - there is nothing here?)
I'd argue that making the notes neon highlighted into rice notes instead of LN would make this section uglier and harder to read due to the asymmetrical release and presses, so keeping it as LN is better. That generally goes for the kiai, there are definitely sounds (harpsichord + choir vocals) to support a primarily LN section.
@Hydria's #1 Hater
I'd argue that making the notes neon highlighted into rice notes instead of LN would make this section uglier and harder to read due to the asymmetrical release and presses, so keeping it as LN is better. That generally goes for the kiai, there are definitely sounds (harpsichord + choir vocals) to support a primarily LN section.
Marked as resolved by kilotek
00:21:901
00:21:901 - Some random long anchor played with LN makes the gameplay of this kiai being kinda messy
For example 00:30:550 (30550|0,30685|0,30820|0,30955|0,31091|0,31226|0,31361|0) - are not placed in a meanful way with correlation with the song, which also plays largely conflict with 00:24:064 (24064|1,24199|1,24334|1,24469|2,24469|3,24604|3,24604|2,24739|2,24739|3) - in actual gameplay due to different ln strain (despite the same density)
Generally would recommend to pay more attention to anchors like this to clean this part a bit more
00:21:901
00:21:901 to 00:34:874 - There are quite a few decently long and slightly uncomfortable anchors here, which I'd suggest maybe looking into cleaning up to play a bit smoother, ex) 00:25:955 (25955|3,26091|3,26226|3,26361|3,26496|3,26631|3,26766|3) and 00:30:955 (30955|0,31091|0,31226|0,31361|0,31496|0,31654|0)
00:22:104
00:22:104 (22104|1) - what's this LN for? if for background click-like thing, seems this sound is actually at 00:22:070 - .
00:25:347 (25347|2) - and other similar places same
00:22:712
00:22:712 (22712|2,22712|0,22712|3,22780|3,22814|2,22847|0,22847|1) - I think this structure is too strong, jack on 4th rail even strongger than 00:21:901 (21901|3,21901|2,21901|1,21946|0,21991|3,22037|2,22104|1) - this structure. For the melody, I subjectively feel that this place is more like 1/3+1/6，like this may be coherent https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/18715242/c946
huh? i dont really hear 1/3+1/6 here, it originally was a 1/3 hand triplet but i feel it's incoherent considering the density/difficulty of similar kiais. Do you think a normal 1/4 minijack would do? it used to be like that. i'll mark as resolved however if you feel it's still wrong let me know.
Marked as resolved by kilotek
00:22:712
00:22:712 (22712|3,22712|2,22780|3,22780|2) - Same as chy030, I personally think that the singular harpsichord sound you map these jacks to are a bit over the top in terms of not only the strength of the sound here, but also the hand control required for this section. I think a simple trill like 3 4 3 would be good enough to emphasize the melodic motif introduced here through a use of pitch relevancy.
This would also apply to 00:25:955 (25955|1,25955|0,26023|1,26023|0) and 00:29:199 (29199|2,29199|3,29266|3,29266|2) - if you choose to apply them.
00:22:780
00:22:780 (22780|1,22847|3), 00:26:023 (26023|2,26091|0), 00:29:266 (29266|1,29334|3), etc..
-> I'm confused what the difference in releases here is for? It's the only time it happens throughout this segment, but I don't see how it's meant to benefit the gameplay or expression here. In fact it's a little awkward to play it when it comes to the sudden staggered releases, I think 1/4 would be the best choice here.
its meant to add on to the idea present in 00:21:901 (21901|3,21901|2,21901|1,21946|0,21991|3,22037|2) - 00:25:145 (25145|2,25145|0,25145|1,25190|3,25235|0,25280|1) - 00:28:388 (28388|3,28388|2,28388|1,28433|0,28478|3,28523|2) - and so on, and i think its fine in gameplay but im kind of an ln main so idk
Marked as resolved by kilotek
00:22:847
00:22:915
00:22:915 (22915|2), 00:23:658 (23658|2), 00:26:158 (26158|1), 00:30:145 (30145|2), 00:32:509 (32509|3), 00:34:131 (34131|3) -> I don't hear anything playing with these notes? Even slowed down it doesn't sound like there's anything playing, it would be better to remove these.
00:23:793
00:23:793 (23793|2,23793|1,23793|3), 00:30:280 (30280|2,30280|1,30280|3) -> Shouldn't one of these extend by 1/2? I think it'd be a nice addition for the violin in the background (and also because you usually have one LN longer than others for percussion)
00:25:843
00:25:955
00:25:955 (25955|1,25955|0,26023|1) - such as these patterns I dont like these hand balance for playing I think https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/18688478/117c it will be better for expressing and hand balance
00:26:766
00:27:509
00:27:847
00:27:847 (27847|3,27847|1,27915|2,27915|0,27982|1,27982|3,28050|0) - i cannot see any reason why this would be extended to 1/8
if you're using the 1/4 synth as a reason, then this should be 1/4 according to 00:27:577 (27577|3,27577|2,27645|1,27645|0,27712|2,27712|3,27780|0,27847|1,27847|3) -
Marked as resolved by kilotek
i'd personally make the 'level of inverse' gradually get higher as the song progresses, eg. (screenshot uses 1/4 -> 1/6 -> 1/8 gaps) https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/18685183/1410 , would represent the gradual buildup of the whistling and justify using 1/8 gaps
Reopened by Slick6969
Marked as resolved by kilotek
00:27:847
00:27:847 (27847|3,27847|1,27915|2,27915|0,27982|1,27982|3,28050|0,28118|2,28118|3) -
I think could be lowered to 1/4 ln spaces
gives more amplification on 00:28:320 (28320|0,28388|1,28388|3,28388|2,28433|0,28478|3,28523|2,28591|1,28658|2,28658|3,28658|0) -
00:27:915
00:28:253
00:28:253 (28253|1) - this LN have a wrongly LN gap. how long gap should be is depends on what you think, but not this 7/48.
00:34:672 (34672|2) - is also wrong
00:32:442 (32442|2,32464|3) - is these releases on your purpose?
Last edited by FLeVI .
Marked as resolved by kilotek
Reopened by FLeVI
Marked as resolved by kilotek
00:29:739
00:29:942
00:29:942 (29942|3,29942|2,30009|3) -tricky jack 213 will be better than 223 https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/18688480/c964
00:31:226
00:31:226 - seems need some change for drumsounds , as 00:24:739 (24739|2,24807|1,24874|0,24874|3,24942|2,25009|1,25009|3,25077|0) - have jack 00:25:077 (25077|0,25145|0) -
Last edited by 8230 .
00:31:901
00:31:901 - si te das cuenta en esta parte finalizas el patron con un minijack en la mano izquierda 00:32:104 (32104|0,32172|0) - 00:32:442 y acá empiezas el patron con su respectiva triple, pero el minijack se situa en la misma mano, llevando a un desiquilibrio en la mano izquierda 00:32:645 (32645|1,32712|1) -, te recomiendo reorganizar el patron para que ese minijack quede la mano derecha y el siguiente 00:32:847 (32847|2,32915|2) - de la mano izquierda
00:31:901
00:31:901 (31901|3,31969|3,32037|2,32104|2) - will be more balance if you move 00:32:037 (32037|2,32104|2) - to left hand, current one has more pressure on right hand.
00:32:442
00:32:442 (32442|0,32442|2,32442|1) - this hit sound like here 00:31:631 (31631|2,31631|1,31631|0,31676|3,31721|1,31766|2) - should choose one to make it consistent（1/6 will be a bit strong but acceptable）
00:32:577
00:33:253
00:33:455
00:33:726
Simplifying the consecutive kick sound at 00:33:726 - only while expressing the former same 2th kick sound at 00:33:320 (33320|2,33320|3) - feels extremely selective and unreasonable. Either 00:33:591 (33591|0) - gets removed to apply note at 00:33:726 - or the basis of structures from 00:31:631 - to 00:34:064 - should consider reducing LN's lengths to acquire enough empty columns to apply notes consistently.
00:34:064
00:34:131
00:34:131
00:34:131 - here the sound is not obvious, and 00:34:739 - should be a sound here, forming a coherent 16th tone stream around it.（maybe in 25% is not so obvious, but I'm leaning toward a sound here, for it just masked by the stronger mix, sounds coherent at full speed or 75%, empty one doesn't play very smoothly）
00:34:604
00:34:874
00:35:144
00:35:482
00:35:482 - missing 1/4 sound, but 00:35:617 (35617|3) - is ghost note
also, this whole part being kinda inconsistent with how normal notes are placed when it comes to 5-1/4 sounds like this, simply compare with
00:35:684 (35684|0,35684|1,35819|0,35955|1,35955|2) - 00:36:360 (36360|2,36495|1,36495|0,36630|2,36630|0) - 00:37:846 (37846|1,37846|2,37982|2,37982|3,38117|3,38117|1) - , they seem to be way too inconsistent then it should be, would suggest to recheck how doubles (1LN+1note) supposed to be mapped in this part
would also check this from 02:12:440 -
00:35:684
00:35:684 (35684|1,35684|3,35752|2,35819|0,35819|3,35887|1,35955|2,35955|0,35955|3) - The emphasis here is a little inconsistent from what you usually represent as doubles. Shouldn't it be something like this?
- Considering the more "noticeably" or "intense" sounds are in the 1/4 lines, not the 1/2 lines.
- Same with 00:36:495 (36495|1,36495|3,36563|2) and similar instances later on.
Last edited by Monoseul .
00:36:698
00:36:698 (36698|3) - there is not have an actual drum sound, it' similar as 00:35:617 - , so better to remove this note for correct drum sounds expression.
also 00:38:860 (38860|1) -
00:36:833
00:37:036
00:37:779
00:37:779 (37779|2) - move to 00:37:644 - ? seems should be consistent as 00:35:279 (35279|2,35346|0,35414|2,35414|3,35482|0,35549|1,35549|2) -
and 00:35:752 - seems miss a sound as 00:37:914 - , or as 00:40:076 - (consistent)
Last edited by 8230 .
00:38:928
00:38:928 (38928|2,38928|3,38995|1,39063|0,39130|2) - I don't understand what this is meant to express. I think it's a little much for just one(?) or two violin notes. I'd suggest toning down at least the LN releases, as it's just overcomplicated for something simple.
00:39:108
Marked as resolved by kilotek
Nah, it's the same sound as the drums from the part before and after it. All of them use 1/4 snapping
Reopened by My Angel Chen
Marked as resolved by kilotek
00:41:090
00:41:090 (41090|2,41123|1,41225|3,41292|2) - i dont quite get this pattern any reason this is different compared to the others even though it sounds pretty much the same?
00:41:090
00:41:135
00:41:135 (41135|1) - this note should be 1/6 later to match the triplet in the melodic line, also shouldnt the rice and LN be the other way around? LN for harpsichord melody and rice for background drums, so like this https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/18685188/9bc4
Marked as resolved by kilotek
I find that the current version is a little strange? https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/18715292/900f
I agree with slick's solution, but a bit different like this, strong beat on 00:41:225 -
Reopened by chy030_ft_pH5_6
Marked as resolved by kilotek
00:41:360
00:41:360 (41360|3,42441|0) - no veo necesario marcar estas ln, aunque se notan que son el violin se empieza a notar acá 00:38:928 y terminan en 00:51:112, aparte a la hora de llegar a esa parte ya estas mecanizando que esta parte sera una de arroz hasta que la canción diga lo contrario
00:43:252
00:43:252 (43252|3,43387|2) - Little confused what these LNs are for, I can't hear what it's meant to express. The bursts and the kicks are the biggest focus here, so I think it'd be best to leave these as rice to highlight that.
Same with 00:45:549 (45549|1) and 00:47:576 (47576|0,47711|1) (besides burst focus)
Last edited by Monoseul .
00:43:522
00:43:522 (43522|2) - Is there really any point to the 1/8 release? The LN chord here releases in a 1/4 interval, but it suddenly ends at 1/8 right before the 1/1 notes which is a little odd imo. I think you're better off extending it to 1/1 to keep the releases consistent.
00:44:401
00:44:806
00:45:346
00:45:414
Doubles from 00:45:414 - to 00:46:630 - were kinda placed frequently col [2] and [3]. I couldn't notice any rhythmical reasoning to apply doubles in the middle that many, and the other surrounding single rice notes being spread on col [1] and col [4] felt unnecessarily imbalanced as well. 
Why don't you move some single rices to col [2] and [3] while spreading doubles?
00:45:414
00:45:414 (45414|1,45482|2,45549|1,45583|2,45684|1,45684|2) - This was a little rough to play. The focus in the inner columns up to the LNs is a little sudden and a bit straining in a way that feels more like a little spike, especially due to the 3rd col at 00:45:482 (45482|2,45583|2,45684|2).
How about this?
00:49:468
00:49:468
00:49:468 (49468|3,49468|2,49502|1,49536|0,49569|3,49603|1) - I find the gameplay here pretty jarring. The combination of bursts and LNs here are a little too tight and messy to play, especially with the releases at 00:49:468 (49468|3,49502|1) (which are slightly different from each other? Weird to properly play). At this bpm it's not fun to play imo
I feel like it'd be better to pause the LN patterning here to focus on the bursts, then transition back to the LNs after. Something like this?
- Or if you don't want to do this, at least change 00:49:468 (49468|3,49502|1) to 3/16 LNs because this is not nice to play (34ms on 1/8..)
00:49:468
00:49:637
00:50:955
Marked as resolved by kilotek
personally wouldn't have a 1/8 roll here, even though I know you use it for the rising whistling sound, cuz you use 1/8 rolls for snare rolls earlier (eg. 00:42:982, 00:45:549), it makes it seem like theres also snare rolls here when there isnt
i would just do gradually increasing level of inverse again, similarly to #3805905/10190029 , eg. https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/18685190/7fa2
Reopened by Slick6969
Marked as resolved by kilotek
00:51:045
00:51:090
00:51:090
00:51:157
00:51:225
00:51:225 (51225|1,51495|0) - I don't see any reason for these to be 1/4 considering they're the same piano keys as the 1/2 LNs. At least 00:51:765 (51765|2) is fine because you need room for the patterns after, but the other two seems unnecessary to shorten.
00:51:360
00:51:383
00:51:383 (51383|1,51653|3) - no hay ningun sonido que haga resaltar el sonido de la grace o un pequeño levantamiento de sonido para poder hacer la grace ya que acá se resalta más el piano
00:51:901
00:51:901 - should this part here have 1/3 notes like 00:51:450 (51450|0,51540|3,51720|0) ? If you can take this mod, you can maybe do something like this:
00:52:036
00:52:036 (52036|1) - Probably it makes more sense to just not map this one consider how loud and large impact previous one 00:51:901 (51901|2,51901|0,51901|3) - has, could just extend last one to 3/4 instead
similar thing can be applied for places 01:11:360 - when other sounds are just not really noticeable and adding 1/4s just purely interrupts the expression for the main sound
00:52:171
00:52:306
00:52:306 - to 01:00:819 - This whole part's chord LN is getting extended by an over exaggerated way imo, as most of them are getting already pretty silenced before your current LN tail
For example, 00:52:306 (52306|0,52306|3,52328|2,52351|1) - is nearly just ending at 1/1 line 00:52:441 - , with artificial and irregular extending LN would make it extremely awkward to play, general suggestion is to just shorten all LNs in this part to a reasonable length
alright, i left 00:56:495 (56495|1,56495|2,56518|0,56540|3,56630|2,56630|1,56653|0,56675|3,56901|1,56901|2,56923|0,56946|3,57036|2,57036|1,57058|0,57081|3) - longer on purpose because they are the highest pitch notes in this section and i think it gives them more impact
Marked as resolved by kilotek
00:53:792
00:53:792 (53792|0) - move this to col 1 00:53:928 and then flip the part after it horizontally so it flows smoother
00:53:792
00:53:792 (53792|1,53792|0,53792|3,53860|2,53928|0,53928|1,54063|3,54063|2,54130|1,54198|3,54198|2,54198|0) - mayby to strong compared with here 00:54:333 (54333|1,54333|0,54401|3,54401|2,54468|1,54468|0) - , maybe using 212 is enough
Last edited by chy030_ft_pH5_6 .
00:53:792
00:53:792 (53792|0,53792|3,53860|1,53928|3,53928|0,54063|1,54063|2,54130|0,54198|2,54198|3) - más que un mod es una pregunta, acá supongo que quieres marcar los drums y no la melodia
00:54:536
00:55:955
00:56:360
00:56:360 (56360|3,56360|2) - si lo dicho en 00:53:792 es verdad esto no es una doble, ya que el sonido no se nota tanto como en estas otras dobles 00:56:090 (56090|0,56090|2) -
00:56:495
00:56:495 (56495|1,56495|2,56518|3,56518|0) - uh... why suddenly the pattern is different here? isn't this pattern is the same like the other that you've made before? besides, i believe this is the only pattern that changed suddenly on this section. i mean, the pattern after this is pretty much has the same concept like you did before 00:59:468 (59468|3,59468|0,59491|2) -
00:58:928
01:00:279
01:00:279 (60279|3,60313|2,60346|1,60414|2,60482|1) - should be okay if you want to change this into LNs because you mapped the pianos anyway at 01:00:549 -. would be great for pattern progression i believe, instead of jumping from normal notes to inverses
01:00:313
01:00:313 (60313|1) - what's the point of this LN? It's just a 1/4 piano rhythm here so this feels unnecessary.
Marked as resolved by kilotek
Reopened by FLeVI
i want to keep it as is, the sound is very full anbd intense to not be inverse in this context
i only made slight changes to 01:00:279 (60279|3,60313|2,60346|1) -
Marked as resolved by kilotek
01:00:549
01:00:819
01:00:819 - 01:01:901 - 01:02:982 - 01:04:063 - sorry but i dont really understand the length differences for these 4 LN patterns. also, asumming that this LNs have progressive concept, then why 01:01:901 (61901|2,61901|1) - is shorter than 01:00:819 (60819|3,60819|1,60819|0) -?
01:01:018
01:02:982
01:02:982 (62982|3,62982|1) - Not sure if the 1/4 ending here is intentional, considering 01:04:063 (64063|0,64063|2) is a regular 1/1 ending and 01:01:901 (61901|0) a 1/2 ending.
Also on that note why is 01:04:063 (64063|2,64063|0) a double LN? It's not even as remotely significant as 01:02:982 (62982|1,62982|3).
01:02:982
01:05:009
01:05:009 (65009|0,65009|1,65076|0,65166|1,65211|0,65346|1,65414|0,65482|0) - siento que estas forzando mucho la mano izquierda acá estas haciendo el respectivo minijack pero despues tienes que hacer la grace y luego de hacer el minijack en la misma mano y en el mismo dedo, asique cuidado con el balance, recomiendo mover el minijack de arriba a la derecha, aunque eso derivaría a cambiar los minijacks de la sección entera
01:05:211
01:05:549
01:05:684
01:05:684 (65684|2,65684|3,65955|2,65955|0), etc..
-> I don't understand what these LNs are for. If it's for the violin, they're in the wrong place. The violins play at the 1/2 line at 01:05:819 and 01:06:090. Same applies to later instances
01:07:306
01:07:306 - to 01:08:387 - For this type of static sound, it's better to keep the patterning symmetrical and avoid any inconsistencies within it.
I see the vision of attempting do a gradual slowdown for reading in difficulty. But it does look messy, with having a mix of 1/12 and 1/8 being the culprits 01:07:880 (67880|0,67914|3,67948|1,67982|0,68015|3,68049|2,68083|0,68151|3) - .
I'd suggest a symmetrical, more clean pattern to fit this section, which has a justification that the sound 01:07:306 - to 01:08:319 - is the same, with no justification for an actual gradual slowdown.
What you have works for playability, so you may decide on whichever to use.
Last edited by Alter- .
01:07:306
01:07:306 (67306|1,67340|2) - these are 34ms lns and are barely noticeable during gameplay, i do not see how they provide any extra emphasis to the map as well. Although they are not breaking any RC guidelines, this comes off more as a "Why?". To top it off, your map is OD 8, isn't this too unreasonable?
01:07:306
01:07:306 (67306|0,67306|1,67340|2,67373|3) - This is realllyyyyyy ugly to play :sob: Like the start of it is 1/8 releases quickly transitioning to 1/8 split burts alongside LNs, which is just a really messy transition to do overall and isn't the best to play.
I would suggest to remove the LNs altogether, but if you don't want to do that, at least change 01:07:306 (67306|1,67340|2) to regular notes and shorten 01:07:306 (67306|0) down to 1/4. This would be a better start to the pattern.
01:08:117
01:08:117 - At the end of the roll here, a single key suddenly seems a bit abrupt. I tend to think in thi way to ensure the continuation of left-right symmetry. https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/18715366/9f5d
and here for me i‘d like using a simple structure like this, to reflect the direction of the melody https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/18715377/e8b1
Last edited by chy030_ft_pH5_6 .
01:08:792
01:08:792 (68792|0,68826|1,68860|3,68894|2) is a 1/4 rhythm, yet is dumped as 1/8? I feel like if you're trying to emphasize the rise of the sound, it would be more impactful to just have the LNs get longer as the patterns progress instead of dumping it as it doesn't warrant that.
01:09:468
01:09:468 - i would prefer if the pattern here is increased progressively instead of kickin' it with pretty long 1/4 inverses. besides, i believe changing it using this concept will fit well with the wind effect build that exists here, instead of "randomly" putting inverse pattern without representing this section to the fullest.
would recommend to change using normal 1/2 LNs then progressively to 1/4 LNs inverse.
Last edited by Virtue- .
Marked as resolved by kilotek
I am a little split here because although this makes sense, it sounds similar to the drop 01:11:630 - except this one is muffled instead. Yet at the same time, one uses ln inverse while the other uses close to full rice.
Yet at the same time, the muffled less intense part plays significantly harder (it is harder to control) in contrast to the more significant drop 01:11:630 -
Is it alright to lighten up the lns a little? (01:09:603 - turn these lns into 1/4 and extend the releases by an extra at 01:10:549 - , no more than that, no inverse as the difficulty will spike)
Reopened by Neon-Hooray
Marked as resolved by kilotek
01:11:360
its.... not a must but 01:11:360 (71360|2,71360|1,71360|3,71495|0) - i think deleting this LNs then 01:11:360 - put a triple here, then 01:11:292 (71292|0) - shorten this by 1/4 would be great to create short rest for ppl to get ready for the next section.
tl;dr create a 1/1 short break.
01:11:630
01:11:630
You should be able to make 01:11:630 (71630|2,71630|3,71630|1) - very similar patterning to 01:20:279 (80279|3,80279|0,80279|2) - what do you think?
Something like this
Last edited by Alter- .
01:12:036
01:12:036 (72036|1,72103|3) - Shouldn't this follow something similar to 01:13:151 (73151|2,73184|1) - ?
U do it 01:16:360 (76360|0,76394|1,76428|2) - when the pattern 01:15:955 (75955|0,75955|1,76022|2) - beforehand couldn't use 1/8 for density sake.
Last edited by Alter- .
01:11:630 - to 01:15:684 - Going back to this, I want to point out the purpose of 01:13:117 (73117|3,73151|2,73184|1) - 01:14:198 (74198|2,74232|1,74265|0) - etc within this section.
What's your reasoning for 01:13:117 (73117|3,73151|2,73184|1) - to be there, wouldn't it be better to have it at 01:13:252 -. That way you have a consistency every 2/1 you have your 1/8 like 01:12:711 (72711|3,72711|0,72745|1,72779|2) -
It's fine the way it is, but It's a bit misunderstanding for me.
It's also consistent with 01:20:279 - to 01:24:333 - So I can see the point you're making.
Last edited by Alter- .
This should be 1/4 right? 01:14:738 (74738|2,74772|1,74806|0) - 01:16:901 (76901|1,76934|0,76968|2) - wait i didn't see these before.
I thought it was supposed to look like 01:17:036 (77036|3,77036|0,77069|1,77103|2,77171|0,77238|3,77238|1,77306|2,77306|0,77373|3,77441|1,77475|2,77509|3,77576|1,77576|0) - all throughout
Last edited by Alter- .
Marked as resolved by Alter-
01:12:036
01:13:522
Assuming you've applied 1/8 grace notes to express guitar sounds, I don't think applying 1/8 grace notes three times to express barely noticeable guitar strings at 01:13:522 (73522|1,73556|2,73590|0,73657|3,73691|2,73725|1) - have rather harmed the overall density basis than good. Patterns at 01:13:522 (73522|1,73556|2,73590|0,73657|3,73691|2,73725|1) - should've been just a 1/4 stream, as the guitar sound at 01:13:792 - was the intenser one than those.
Even if that was not your intention to apply 1/8 grace, still somehow that consecutive 1/8 graces have kinda messed the hand balance and note-stacking technique. You can see how the left hand was so empty there.
Marked as resolved by kilotek
01:14:873
01:15:955
01:15:955 (75955|3,75955|0,75955|1,76022|2,76090|1) - I think at least either these LNs should've been released earlier or be removed. Reverse LN shield at 01:15:955 (75955|1,76090|1) - right after the 1/8 burst in the middle of 1/4 stream feels pretty much stressful and it seems there was no reason in expression for that shield anyway.
01:15:955
01:16:360
01:16:360
01:17:306
01:17:306 (77306|3,77306|0,77306|2,77441|1,77441|2,77576|0,77576|3,77576|1) - suddenly applying jumps while the sounds you've been expressing with 1/4 stream and 1/8 grace felt sudden and inconsistent.
If you wanted to give it a break, the entire density from 01:11:630 - to 01:18:117 - should be redone to apply breaks without inconsistency. Or notes from 01:17:306 - to 01:18:117 - should be consecutive as others. 
01:17:441
01:18:117
01:18:117 (78117|1,78117|2,78139|0,78252|3,78252|2,78319|0,78319|1,78387|3,78387|0,78410|2) - this mirror maybe suit, avoid jcak here01:18:117 - on 4th rail
Marked as resolved by kilotek
01:18:117
01:18:117, 01:24:603 - personally there is no need for dumping crashes, kinda blurs the layering between the guitar riffs in this pattern.
The reason why I suggest this right now, is because when you get into the later sections such as 03:50:455, 03:51:415, 05:11:150, etc - you will notice that the layering gets a lot more ambiguous and muddled up with the other bursts that when emphasized with clarity, can make those sections a lot more smoother and intuitive to play while maintaining its edge of difficulty.
01:18:522
Referring to #3798634, shouldn't 01:18:522 (78522|3,78590|1) - have the rice grace instead of 01:18:387 (78387|0,78421|1,78455|2,78725|1,78759|2,78792|3) - ? Don't hear any guitar on the latter. Besides, double should be preferred at 01:18:387 - for bass sound, innit?
01:19:198
01:19:468
01:19:468 - missing note here when theres one at 01:19:265 (79265|1) with the same pattern, would put a note at 01:19:468 on the 4th column and then move 01:19:738 (79738|3) to the 2nd column to avoid the anchor
01:22:464
01:24:536
01:24:536 (84536|3,84536|2,84603|1,84603|3,84626|0) - this same like here 01:22:373 (82373|2,82441|0,82441|3,82464|1) - using 2→1→3
is okay to keep, for emphasizing it, but I think it would be more reasonable if there is a coherent stream
Last edited by chy030_ft_pH5_6 .
01:24:738
01:25:009
01:25:684
01:26:968
01:27:238
01:27:238 (87238|3,87306|0,87306|2,87441|0) - current doubles is not have relation with drums, actually the drums which worth to be express is 01:27:238 - 01:27:373 - 01:27:441 - etc, just follow the drum sounds is fine
01:27:846
01:27:846 (87846|2,87880|1,87914|0,87948|3) - is much better as 1/4, I get what you intended with the 1/8, but it sounds forced and weird.
The sound is 1/4 aswell.
Also attempt putting some 1/4 here 01:28:657 (88657|2,88657|1,88657|3,88792|0) -
It's weird and feels out of place
01:27:846
01:27:846 (87846|0,87846|1,87914|2,87982|1,88027|3,88072|0,88117|1,88184|2,88252|0,88319|3) - estas ln podrias acortarlas un poquito solamente, ya que apartir de acá 01:28:387 ya podrias poner el full ln ya que el sintetizador ya esta formado
01:28:928
01:28:928 - just a little thing i quickly thought of, which is alternating between 1/2 and 1/4 long LN's every 1/1 beat to match with the fluctuations in the melody while building off the previous section at 01:11:630 without being full inverse ( https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/18685206/0fde ), and this can be done on 01:37:576 too since it repeats
01:28:928
01:28:928 - This entire drop/kiai fails to stand out as a drop because it gets sandwiched between two other full inverse areas (01:27:846 - 01:46:225 - )
For 01:27:846 - the sound gets slightly clearer here so I would rice it or shorten the ln lengths here. As for 01:46:225 -, same suggestion as #3898248/10425439 where you could rice the percussion.
01:28:928
01:28:928 - for this whole kiai,
the pattern have some repeat for the melody flow, it's fine, but the repeat cycle is wrong. from 01:31:090 - we can get your repeat cycle is 4 bars in a row. but actually the music's melody sound flow is 2 bars in a row, it means from 01:28:928 - to 01:30:009 - should be repeat and same, 01:30:009 - to 01:31:090 - is same, but should make difference with former. you should change the repeat cycle on your pattern to make the overall feel more fit the music.
current pattern seems fine, just have one things, 01:33:252 (93252|2) - is should be have same LN gap
Marked as resolved by kilotek
01:28:928
01:28:928 (88928|1) - since the whole kiai other LN gaps are all 1/4, so some 1/6 gaps like this is really meaningless. better to change this and all similar LN gaps to be 1/4.
01:30:549
01:33:184
01:34:265
01:34:265 (94265|3,94806|3) - Shouldn't these be 1/4? It's the same as 01:33:184 (93184|1) and such.
01:35:414
01:35:414 (95414|3,95482|2,95549|1,95819|0,95887|1,95955|0,96022|1,96090|2,96360|3,96428|2) - here, the hit and melody maybe wrong, drums is all on 1/2, i would like to arrang like this https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/18715407/a362 (This is an approximate reference, I think this may form some differences for the transition in the two beats)
Last edited by chy030_ft_pH5_6 .
01:36:428
01:36:765
01:37:576
the shield didn't matter but the following last LN was pretty much of uncomfortable notestack. Consider managing nearby LNs' columns at 01:37:576 (97576|3,97644|0,97678|2,97711|3) - to correct it.
01:38:387
01:40:482
01:41:090
01:42:914
I think 01:42:914 (102914|2,102914|3,102982|1,103184|0,103184|1,103252|2,103252|3) - these kinds of LNs should be released on 1/12 line earlier like this to give a bit more of distance between release and the next burst. Currently they felt too sharp, but this might be just coz of my skill issue, so it's your call to decide.
01:44:063
01:44:063 patron qliao weno XD pero ojo acá, 01:44:063 (104063|0,104130|1,104130|0,104198|1) - evita a toda costa estos tipos de speedjack estos afectan drasticamente a la jugabilidad más si es un mapa de alto bpm
01:45:144
01:45:144 - 01:46:225: i think the releases here are okay, but the streams being disconnected from each other and not really being rolly could be a little rough for players to transition into. For example, 01:45:144 (105144|3,105178|0,105211|1,105245|2,105279|3) - 4123 is a very unintuitive burst sequence to have when the rest of this buildup section has been ultra comfy in terms of rolling. It can be a bit disconcerting to play especially when you have players locked into a flow state in the last 30 seconds of the map playing handstream inverse.
for the sake of consistently layering kicks to rice (i.e. 01:37:036 (97036|1,97036|0,97069|2,97103|3,97137|1,97171|0)), the same concept should still be held
01:45:414
01:45:414 (105414|0,105549|0) - seems should have same LN gap with 01:45:178 (105178|1,105279|1) - since the LN gap position is same, it's not about if there is have enough space.
01:46:765
01:46:765 - the clap is like here 01:47:576 - I tend to use a double that is different from kick here 01:46:630 (106630|3,106630|2,107035|0,107035|1,107103|3,107103|2,107170|0,107170|1,107306|2,107441|0,107441|2) - , to ensure that 01:47:576 - is a stronger triple here, just like your doing here 01:48:252 (108252|1,108252|0,108319|3,108387|2,108387|1,108387|0) -
Last edited by chy030_ft_pH5_6 .
The similar places in the later are all consistent, for double or triple both could be acceptable with different length of LNs
Last edited by chy030_ft_pH5_6 .
Marked as resolved by kilotek
01:47:576
01:47:846
At least after 01:47:846 - , the hand balance should've been forced onto the opposide direction for hand balance. Especialyl from 01:48:657 - to 01:49:468 - , forcing most note stacks and density to the left hand would be an anacceptable balance, considering there wasn't any pattern forcing the right hand to keep the balance on square. 
01:47:846
01:47:846 (107846|0,108387|0,108657|0) - just be careful with LN placements that might accidentally represent something unintended (in this case, it appears the melody plays the same note three times when it doesnt, even with 01:48:387 being there), same idea with other parts like 01:49:468 (109468|1,110008|1,110279|1), etc
obviously not avoidable all the time but do your best lol
01:49:265
01:50:549
01:50:549 (110549|1,110549|2,110684|3,110684|0,110819|2,110819|3,110819|0) - Just compare here with 01:47:306 (107306|2,107441|3,107576|2,107576|3,107711|3,107846|3) - , can see how inconsisistent the anchor being dealt with, would suggest to clean it up by a bit
and 01:50:346 (110346|0) - should be 1/4 longer for consistency too
01:51:810
01:51:833
01:52:373
01:52:441
01:52:441 (112441|3,112441|2,112508|1,112576|0,112576|2,112643|3): inconsistency with 00:28:253 (28253|1,28253|2,28320|0,28388|2,28388|1,28388|3) for a similar series of sounds.
nerf back the 1/6 releases to 1/4?
01:55:616
01:55:616 - 01:55:684, 01:57:238 - 01:57:306: I can understand the layering here, but imo the minijacks that result in column 2 and 3 respectively are very intrusive to play when the rest of the bursts added here are relative rolly and produce less hand strain when played.
suggest toning down on the layering here a bit, maybe reduce the hands such as 01:55:684 (115684|0,115684|1,115684|3) - to a jump to make gameplay smoother
01:55:887
01:57:339
01:57:339 (117339|2) -
i think the sound is heard at 01:57:272, this note should be changed to this note should be replaced with 01:57:272.
The sound is heard here. 01:57:272
remove 01:57:339 (117339|2) - this note and change to 01:57:272
ex)
Marked as resolved by kilotek
01:58:387
01:58:387
01:58:387 (118387|2,118454|1,118522|0) - why these LNs longer? The feeling is not obviously stronger than the latter https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/18715456/6a42
01:59:738
01:59:738 - this part, I tend to think that the third beat of each bar will be different from the second beat, I think you can use double on the third beat. Like this https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/18715474/d3db
02:01:224
02:01:224 (121224|2,121360|2) - Probably don't need to be stack since they're not the same pitch
02:03:116
02:04:806
02:04:873
02:04:873 - just be wary that the LH isnt really doing anything for an extended period of time
i know its balanced out with the RH not doing anything at 02:07:035 for a while and it matches with the intro trills, but the difference is that the intro had some LH action going on still while the trill was happening so just be wary of what each hand is doing at any point since it could come off as awkward
you could rearrange if you want to, not a big issue
02:05:414
this note (02:05:414 (125414|0) - ) suppose to be an 1/2 LN (like 02:04:873 (124873|0) - or 02:05:684 (125684|0) - for example)
02:07:981
02:07:981 (127981|2) - there seems is not have worthily sounds to have a note at here.
01:59:670 (119670|3) -
Marked as resolved by kilotek
02:08:657
02:11:630
02:11:630 - uh.... why col 1 and 2 is kinda empty? is there any sound that worth to be emphasized using 3rd and 4th column? because i dont hear any tbh. would be great if you could spread the pattern nicely throughout the 4 columns to create a balance gameplay rather than focusing on the right side of the playing field.
02:13:994
02:20:278
02:20:278 - keep in mind that the 1/3 minijacks in this are a bit awkward, not really a bad thing, but it puts little spikes in stress at offbeat spots at 02:20:323, 02:20:593, and 02:20:728 in a part which has one continuous sound, so it could be a smoother pattern, leave minijacks for spots where you want to have defined stresses in
02:20:278
02:20:278 - 02:20:818: This burst is very out of place for a rest section that has been testing your overall control with 1 + 3 hybrid patterns, and previously the swish sound has consistently been established with the addition of LN releases, so I am not sure why it is different here.
personally all of this should just be mapped like 02:12:305 - 02:19:737 but 1/4 inversed
02:20:548
02:20:818
what's the difference between 02:20:818 (140818|0) - and 02:23:218 (143218|0) - ? i believe there's no such major difference between the sound that you're following because they are similar from what i heard
02:22:018
02:23:375
02:23:375 (143375|1,143454|1) - random minijack? definitely doesnt match the intensity compared to 02:23:143 (143143|0,143218|0), same applies for 02:27:606 (147606|2,147694|2)
02:24:165
02:24:718
02:25:503
02:25:586
02:25:586 (145586|0,145586|1,145665|3,145665|2,145744|0,145744|1,145744|3) - 190bpm triple jack maybe a bit strong, like here 02:23:068 - is okay, also in order to distinguish it from the subsequent deceleration part
02:26:744
02:26:744 (146744|2,146744|3) - Not sure what you're mapping this 1/4 LN double to, but if it is the strings, I think it is also out of place with what you have established in this section to be a focus on the percussions in the background with 1/4 LNs.
Probably replace this back with a rice double, or what is relevant in your layering choice for this section.
02:26:910
02:26:910 (146910|1,146910|0,146994|1,146994|0,147077|3,147077|2,147077|0) - https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/18715488/bac2 mirror to make it suitable
02:27:694
02:27:694 - 02:28:224 - i think it should be single , cuz it is tooo light to be double vs kicksounds ， maybe 02:27:606 (147606|2,147694|2,148135|3,148224|3) - an anchor is enough
or just delete 02:27:694 (147694|3) - and keep 02:28:224 (148224|3,148224|2) - ， cuz 02:27:694 (147694|3) can hardly be heard at 100% .
Last edited by 8230 .
02:27:782
02:27:782
02:27:782 (147782|0,147871|0,147959|0,148135|0) - bro... this is pain. would not recommend this at all because how heavy the col 1 is
personally i would reduce 02:27:871 - and 02:28:047 - because they're the only one that worth to be sacrifice. by doing this, not only the pattern is less denser and less pain, we also can emphasize 02:27:782 -, 02:27:959 -, 02:28:135 - to be more noticeable than before.
02:27:782
02:27:782
02:27:871
02:27:871 (147871|1) - Don't see any reason for the LN here since the melody is just pretty stable on 1/2 02:27:782 (147782|3,147782|2,147959|3,147959|0,148135|2,148135|1) -
02:28:488
02:28:488 (148488|2,148851|3,149033|1,149215|2,149397|0,149578|1,149760|2) - Since your focus on the next part really is on jack and burst oriented tech patterns, I think these LNs are unnecessary and should be removed since they also add a weird amount of awkwardness to an already control-intensive section here.
02:28:488
02:28:488 - to 02:29:942 - The patterning in this short section is kinda random that, the jack or trill is not really placed consistently but just scattering everywhere. i think it matters when it's fast like this
The most noticeable one is 02:28:669 (148669|0,148669|1,148760|1) - , which shouldn't have been a jack holding together with LN due to being pretty different with 02:28:488 (148488|3,148488|2,148578|3) - 02:29:033 (149033|0,149033|1,149124|0) - etc. Also the difference between OH trill 02:28:760 (148760|3,148806|2,148851|3) - and trill 02:29:306 (149306|1,149351|3,149397|1) - can be considered more closely too
Btw looks like 02:29:669 (149669|0) - missing a double for drum
02:29:260
02:29:260
02:29:942
02:30:397
02:31:124
02:31:124 (151124|1,151124|0) - It works much better to just single here because the double doesn't really emphasize anything and it kind of ruins the impact of last loud sound 02:31:033 (151033|2,151033|0,151033|3) -
02:31:457
02:31:942
02:31:942 (151942|1,151942|2,151972|3,152003|0,152033|2) -
current patterns is just put some notes for different things and mixed together, i more want to you to make more patter n design on this pattern to let this part have more relation with music.
example 02:31:972 (151972|3,152003|0) - , in structure these two note are belong to a same electric guitar sound, so better to make these two notes together. and btw, it's should have same shape with 02:31:791 (151791|3,151821|2) - since they're all electric guitar sound.
and 02:32:033 - this thing is not same as former two notes, it's a click sound, so better to not put together with former to make a difference. similar in nature to 02:31:881 - .
02:32:124
02:32:124 - i think 1/6 dump would still fit here, kinda similar structure with 02:33:397 (153397|0,153427|1,153457|2,153488|3,153578|3,153578|2,153639|1,153700|3) -
02:33:306
02:34:306
02:36:427
check here too 02:39:336 (159336|1) - 02:39:336 (159336|1) - 02:40:791 (160791|0) - 02:41:881 (161881|1) - 02:42:245 (162245|3) -
Last edited by Alter- .
I'd see if this is supposed to be removed 02:37:518 (157518|3) - 02:37:881 (157881|0) - 02:38:972 (158972|0) - 02:40:427 (160427|3) -
I'm seeing these are consistent, but I'd suggest keeping it simple and making it 4 1/12 notes
Last edited by Alter- .
Marked as resolved by kilotek
02:36:988
02:36:988 (156988|0) - it kind of dumped to nothing here because the low pitch sonud only starts at 1/2 line 02:37:033 - , if you concerned about density tho, then just remove it
02:38:488
02:39:488
02:39:488 (159488|1,159578|1,159669|1) - from what i heard, these 1/8s are not placed correctly. they should be started at 02:39:397 -.
02:39:578 (159578|1) - there's no sound here. delete this
also... sorry i cant give pattern suggestion because 02:39:578 (159578|2) - 02:39:760 (159760|3) - 02:40:033 (160033|3) - im not sure what sounds are these LNs following, would be great if you could explain it
02:39:578
02:39:578 (159578|2,159578|0,159669|1,159760|0,159760|3,159851|1,159851|2,159942|1,159942|2,160033|0,160033|3) - Feel it way too random to suddenly emphasize the special sound here, as it actually already appears several times before at 02:33:578 - 02:36:488 - so there is no real reason to only do this here imo
02:40:124
02:41:033
02:42:306
02:43:033
02:43:306
02:43:397
02:43:397 - to 02:53:215 - This part is pretty straightforward but i believe due to random patterning it doesn't play that well in some extent due to the fast speed of pattern
- 02:46:488 (166488|0,166488|1,166578|0,166624|1,166669|0) - vs 02:43:578 (163578|0,163669|0,163669|1,163760|0,163760|1) - pattern straining is quite different due to OH trill, would be good to manage them a bit better
- 02:44:033 (164033|0,164169|0) - 02:44:760 (164760|0,164897|0) - 02:45:306 (165306|1,165442|1) - random 1/8 reverse shield, not that important as first one but still good to get rid of them if possible
02:43:942
Last edited by FLeVI .
02:44:488
02:45:397
Take a look at 02:45:397 (165397|1,165397|2,165442|0,165488|2,165578|0,165578|1,165624|3,165669|0,165669|1,165760|3,165760|2,165806|0,165851|2) -
Then compare for 02:48:306 (168306|0,168306|3,168351|1,168397|2,168397|3,168488|0,168488|1,168533|2,168578|0,168578|3,168669|2,168669|3,168715|0,168760|1) -
The difference being 02:48:397 (168397|2,168397|3) - this double
02:45:851
02:48:669 - ; 02:51:942 (171942|1,171942|0,172033|3,172033|2) - ; 02:52:306 (172306|3,172306|2,172397|0,172397|1) - ; 02:52:669 - same
these 1/8s have a little difference. It’s fine to use the same number of different arrangements or different numbers, but it’s okay to make no distinction, it’s hard to hear under full speed.
Last edited by chy030_ft_pH5_6 .
02:51:488 (171488|3,171488|2,171533|0,171578|3,171578|1,171669|2,171669|1) - here also same structure, 02:51:533 (171533|0) - this one need deleted
Marked as resolved by kilotek
02:45:851
02:50:215
02:51:669
02:53:306
02:54:306
02:54:306 (174306|0,174306|2) - Feel like the double here is purely visual choice but not rely on any real sound, you should have other way without overemphasizing imo
02:54:669
02:54:669 - From here I feel a bit confused, it seems that you want to show the sense of continuity in the mix, but I think the 1/8LN in it will not be very clean. I don't quite know your thoughts on it, so I will live my personal thoughts: the LN here needs to be streamlined, try to use a longer LN (such as 3/8~5/8), and highlight the feeling of delay through staggered placement. Reducing the use of LN can leave the remaining space for the jack, so as to strengthen the kick.
The sound of this section is really mixed and needs to be sorted out. I'm sorry that I haven't thought of a reasonable solution for the time being.
02:55:306
02:55:306 (175306|1,175488|3) - Supposed to be LN? i just see you basically want to make it full LN in this part
02:55:442
02:55:578
02:55:578 (175578|2,175609|3) - is this space is really have structure difference with 02:57:033 - ? for musical place and instrumentals, they're all the same, the only one different thing is the pitch and it's can't be a reason to make pattern difference like this. so better to keep these two place to be same.
also after same places.
02:56:397
02:56:397 | 03:02:215 | 03:08:033 | 03:13:851 - these should’ve represent an ln connecting to the next ln pattern, like the ones on 02:54:942 (174942|0) , 02:55:306 (175306|1) , 02:55:669 (175669|2,175715|0) , 02:56:033 (176033|2) (and so on that have the same thing). I would rearrange the notes into something, like this example below, to have it be more consistent with its core patterning:
Last edited by AverageBoi .
02:57:033
02:57:033 - Pretty sure you're missing the 1/6 sound here, it's just like 02:55:578 (175578|2,175578|3,175578|0,175639|1,175700|2) -
03:02:851 - 03:08:669 - 03:14:488 -
Also why is 03:13:033 (193033|3,193033|1,193033|0,193094|2,193154|1) - done inconsistent with others?
02:57:154
02:57:215
02:57:260
02:57:260 (177260|3,177260|2) - This double is a little unintuitive because the kicks in this whole burst i.e. 02:57:215 - 02:57:397 sound the exact same. should remove 1 note to just emphasize drum; LNs at 02:57:033 should be arranged accordingly
Same goes for the other burst in this kiai 03:08:897 (188897|0,188897|1).
02:58:351
02:58:351 (178351|0) - you make this dump expression place to be note, but at other places like 02:56:897 (176897|1) - , there is a LN, do you have special reason at here?
02:58:851
02:59:578
02:59:760
03:00:215
03:00:215 (180215|3,180215|2,180306|1,180306|0,180397|1,180397|0) - you could maybe put lns that go with the synth lead thingy here i feel like that'd flow a little better
03:03:078
03:04:851
03:04:851 (184851|2,184942|2,185033|2) - Might want to see if the 3-note jack here is intentional, very rare to see you have this through the whole part other than 03:00:124 - , when the sound has much more impact than this spot, so i'd reconsider if it's reasonable to use 3-note jack here
03:04:942
03:04:942 (184942|1,184942|0,184942|2,185033|1,185033|0,185033|3) - not cymbal bro. should be double
personally would be deleting 03:04:942 (184942|1,185033|0) - these notes
Last edited by Virtue- .
03:05:578
03:05:578 (185578|3,185578|2,185624|1,185669|0,185669|3) - uhh... i dont think the drums are worth to be mapped using 1/6 inverses as they're kinda random. would be a different story if you're following synths like the previous patterns.
as for 03:05:851 (185851|2,185851|3,185897|1,185942|0,185942|3) - welp... i think we could let this slide since there's a long synth, the fact that there's only a single synth and you mapped it using 1/6 inverses is still bothering me. like... idk bro, it doesn't fit at all tbh.
03:05:578
03:05:578 - 03:06:306: part before this mapped rice for kicks i.e. 02:57:215 (177215|1,177260|2,177306|1,177351|2,177397|0) (albeit with some layer mixes to emphasize both the bursts and the LN section happening here), so I personally think the kicks here ought to be mapped to rice instead of short LNs.
03:05:578
this place's jacks are all stack on right hand, it will cause this place's density unbalance. you'd better to move jacks into different hands to balance the hands pressure.
03:11:306
03:14:760
03:15:033
03:16:169
03:16:169 (196169|2) - you should probably move this ghost note at 03:16:078 . it doesn’t make sense that a sound doesn’t get mapped here, but following that is a note that’s been placed with no indication of sound
Marked as resolved by kilotek
03:18:306
03:18:306 - to 03:28:124 - Could have used some more anchors for consecutive drums like 03:18:669 (198669|0,198851|1,199033|2,199033|0) - , it's now feeling kinda souless for being too simple compared with everything else in this map
there is no huge problem, but simply adding some anchors would make it better consider how overall strain is, solution like (yes, you just need to move a couple of notes) https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/18770310/4d3e
just close this if you don't want to change tho
Marked as resolved by kilotek
Reopened by kilotek
Marked as resolved by kilotek
03:18:881
03:18:881 - quiet percussion sound definitely lands right on the 1/2 here, even if it doesnt, it's more intuitive for a player to hit right on 1/2 (if a player hits right on 1/2 when the note is slightly offbeat, they would get a perfect rather than a marvelous due to note being 30ms off from 1/2 and OD being +-16.5ms)
03:20:124
03:20:124 - i think i'd prefer for quick bursts like this to have a consistent theming in how notes are spaced, 03:20:245 (200245|3,200260|2) has a super close distance while the next burst over at 03:22:397 (202397|1,202442|3) has a consistent decreasing snap spacing
03:20:124
03:20:124 (200124|0,200215|0) - this jack maybe a bit strong, I think it would be better to use the arrangement like here 03:25:215 (205215|2,205215|0,205260|1,205306|3,205336|0) - , which is suitable for similar places
Marked as resolved by kilotek
Sorry for reopening this discussion as I didn't finish writing this
The idea I put forward in this paragraph is to use double for the accent part of each main theme, because they are all well reflected on 3/2. If there is a continuous 1/8 in the main melody, the first and last two notes can be strengthened by double. For other lighter bass, use single to express
for sample like this：
04:00:039 - here using double for strong notes https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/18716422/a633
04:01:484 - and there become denser, so 1/2 with 1/4 to lock
I feel that because this part is like intro before the climax, the sound used can be simplified, so I think it is enough to focus on the strongest melody.
In short, this is my personal suggestion. I prefer a cleaner expression, or you can add some LN length changes. It depends more on your subjective ideas.
ps：here seems some anchor in this part like these https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/18716430/7075
This is just a reminder, I think it is reasonable to have it or not, but if there is an anchor, you can also pay attention to the consistency, try to distribute it on each track, and notice the correspondence between the range of the anchor and the background chord
Reopened by chy030_ft_pH5_6
Marked as resolved by kilotek
03:20:215
Check this too 03:25:306 (205306|3,205336|0) - 03:25:306 (205306|3,205336|0) -
Last edited by Alter- .
what am i looking at 03:26:033 (206033|2,206063|0,206184|0,206215|3) -
also avoid these minijacks 03:25:942 (205942|2,206033|2) -
Same suggestions apply
Marked as resolved by kilotek
03:20:851
03:20:942
03:20:942 (200942|3) - This long note should be moved up a little bit to 03:20:972 to match the same decreasing snap idea you implemented on these same vocal samples at 03:17:942, 03:23:760, and other repeats of this same vocal
03:22:760
03:22:912
03:23:760
03:23:760
- middle section break and buildup *
03:23:760 (203760|1,203760|3,203821|2,203851|0,203942|1,204033|3) - the quality of the bell + crash sounds in this part is dominant compared to the choir voices here, like in 03:17:942 (197942|1,197942|0,197942|3,198003|2,198063|1,198124|0,198215|3,198306|2), so I'm not sure why you used a dump sequence that you had been using just to dump the vocals.
id say make both of this the same, or if you want even more strict consistency between parts of the map, consider something like 01:46:225 (106225|1,106225|2,106225|0) lol
03:23:760
03:26:669
03:28:124
03:28:488
03:28:669
03:29:578
03:29:578 - lets think about the focus here, previous section focused on the background percussion, so makes sense to continue focusing on the percussion for the next section
however, a new triplet melody is introduced which overshadows the percussion sounds, following the percussion for so long might become stale to the player or even be jarring hearing the triplet melody next to it, since mapping 1/4 and 1/3 together can be icky if not done properly, choose one and ignore the other
i'd go with the triplet melody cuz then there's opportunity at 03:40:503 to interchange between mapping the triplet melody and mapping singular spots like at 03:42:603 focused on the percussion in 1/4 and create super interesting rhythmic variety
03:31:033
03:31:397
felt messy and didn't feel 100%
I notice your mapping the 1/4 mostly to the background tics and hits, whatever those snare hits something, my brain hurts.
Try this, I mapped both the focus on 1/6 piano and 1/4.
03:35:311
03:35:369
03:35:644
03:36:755
03:36:755 (216755|3,216866|3) - ; 03:39:345 (219345|2,219450|2) - these two looks strange, feel no need to add 1/12
03:37:936
03:39:477
03:39:477 - I believe you're missing out a note on this kick that was mapped as a double in 03:39:240 (219240|3,219240|2). It's currently a single note.
conversely, 03:39:555 (219555|3,219555|1) has no kick to map a double to, so you'll need to remove one of those as well.
03:40:803
03:40:803 - 03:42:903: Personally, I have no idea why this part features a jumpjack section, when the next part in 03:43:188 onwards starts using jumpstream and splittrilly patterns, especially when the motif and the quality of the bass sounds here sound the exact same, albeit with the tempo speedup.
should follow later part and be jumpstream for consistency
03:42:003
03:43:831
03:43:831 (223831|1,223831|0) - I advise you to change this jump by one note (you already have a louder sound on the jump at this point so it seems like a dump).
03:45:938
03:46:278
03:46:278 (226278|0) - Why not double, also can rearrange by a bit to avoid unecessary minijack
03:47:369
03:48:934
03:50:875
03:50:875 (230875|0,230875|2,230935|1,230935|3,230995|0) - 03:51:818 (231818|1,231876|0,231876|3,231934|1,231934|2) - 03:52:726 (232726|0,232782|3,232782|2,232838|0,232838|1) - These are basically all sound the same so there is no reason to make them that different
03:53:226
03:54:910
03:55:210
03:55:210 - current pattern is really can't say it's good, if you replace LNs to be note the problem will be very clearly.
.
you can make this place more regularly, current beats you also can find some feel to make like this
, then you fill it to be LNs, it will be like
(just a reference, you can improve this pattern basic on my sug and use your own style)
Last edited by FLeVI .
03:55:635
03:55:635 (235635|3,235660|2) - There is no burst sound to warrant the 1/8 usage here, also 03:55:660 (235660|2,235742|2) - is pretty awkward, can just remove the 1/8 one and put note at col4 instead
03:55:710
03:55:710 (235710|0,235710|3,235742|2,235774|1,235806|3,235839|0,235871|1,235903|2,235935|3,235968|0,236000|1,236032|2,236064|0,236097|3,236129|2,236161|1,236193|0,236226|3,236258|2,236290|3,236290|0,236290|1,236387|2) - 1 here 1/12 or 1/8 ( I don't understand it completely) ( but it's better to use 1/8) 2 it's better to change all these lns at this point to normal notes
03:55:710
03:55:710 (235710|1,235742|0,235774|2,235806|1,235839|3,235871|2,235903|0,235935|1,235968|3,236000|0,236032|2,236064|3,236097|1) - worried about this tbh. the 1/12 gap is... awkward imo. idk how to express how awkward is this but i believe ppl will prefer continuous pattern rather than having gaps like this.
Marked as resolved by kilotek
Just going to point out that this entire thing here is a MASSIVE spike, inversing it is a yikes for me and I do not see any other solution other than making this easier to hit by turning it into rolls.
Reopened by Neon-Hooray
Marked as resolved by kilotek
03:55:710
03:56:193
03:56:193 (236193|3,236242|2,236290|3,236290|1,236339|2,236387|1) - this is so ununcomfortable in gameplay
03:56:339 (236339|2,236387|1) - remove these and change like this
Last edited by [GB]SuddenDeath .
03:58:261
Regarding how to fix this, I honestly feel like the wind sound here should be ignored if representing such a thing causes massive problem. just an entire quad ln with releases at different timings could work better that a huge dump.
Marked as resolved by kilotek
03:58:632
03:58:632 (238632|3,238669|0) - I'd suggest keeping these two long notes snapped to 1/4 to make this speedup flow better by having snap increases on 1/1 rather than being off just here
05:27:150 too
03:59:595
03:59:650
03:59:817
Last edited by chy030_ft_pH5_6 .
Marked as resolved by kilotek
03:59:835
03:59:835 (239835|0,239854|2) - if you're making these for that wubwub-like (actually it's a reverse kick) sound, seems current one is still too weak, you'd better to change your expression on after 03:59:928 - that's the more obvious place.
04:03:206
04:03:206 (243206|0) - The 1/4 here feels more like misrepresent but not 'valid dump' because there is literally nothing here, and basically inconsistent with 03:59:595 (239595|1,239595|0,239706|3,239706|2,239761|1,239817|2,239817|3) -
Similar thing happens at 04:04:206 (244206|0) - 04:04:761 (244761|1) - 04:05:206 (245206|0) - etc, do check this more carefully through whole part in lower playback rate like 25% since this part's sound is in general more clean, and adding unecessary 1/4 would ruin its structure by a lot
04:04:150
04:04:150 (244150|1,244150|3) - Double just doesn't express anything here because no main synth
Also for 04:04:484 (244484|2,244484|3) - , and would suggest to check this whole part to see if there is similar issue
04:04:206
04:04:206 (244206|0) - this thing is can't be exist if you follow your overall expression, there is not have any obvious and independent sound.
Last edited by FLeVI .
04:04:372
04:04:372 (244372|0,244400|2,244428|1) - better to change to be 1/6 to make difference with 04:04:261 - pitch changes place, 04:04:372 is not have pitch change and not a sound's start so can be have low frequently dump to express.
04:05:372
04:06:150
04:06:150 - this synth sound is pitchless (actually it have a lower pitch just it's blend into background), just similar as 04:02:372 (242372|2) - 04:05:484 (245484|2) - etc. so 04:06:150 - should be a single.
04:06:206 (246206|2) - this LN for what, better to delete
04:08:039 - this is pitchless melody seems not worth to have double, better to be single. (1)
04:09:595 - same 1
04:11:150 (251150|3,251178|0) - same 1
04:11:261 - idk what do you think about this but personally it's not really worth to be double
04:11:039 (251039|1,251067|2,251150|3,251178|0,251261|1,251261|2) - and 04:11:484 (251484|3,251511|2,251595|0,251595|1,251706|1) - are same in musical, you should let these two places to be same in expression.
04:12:650 (252650|3) - this LN for what, better to delete
04:11:928 - 04:12:150 - 04:12:372 - want to ask again, do you want to express obviously pitchful short melody sound to be flat double? if yes, you should have consider about these sounds, which one do you want to express. but i prefer 04:12:372 - .
04:13:372 - is this place really worth to have triple?
04:18:706 - there seems more like 1 pitchless melody LN+1 drum note (2)
04:19:706 - same 2
04:22:595 - 04:22:817 - to follow the previous expression way like 04:04:595 (244595|1,244595|0) - , they should be flat double.
04:23:372 - no double for pitchful melody + snaredrum?
04:24:261 - to 04:24:928 - no any note for drums?
04:06:206 (246206|2) is for transition to the next sound
04:08:039 eh okay ill make this a single, not as strong as i thought it was (1, 1)
04:11:261 i didnt notice this, single now
04:11:039 (251039|1,251067|2,251150|3,251178|0,251261|1,251261|2) - and 04:11:484 (251484|3,251511|2,251595|0,251595|1,251706|1) fixed
04:12:650 (252650|3 i swear there was a sound here, deleted
04:13:372 no ,,
04:18:706 fixed both
04:22:595 - 04:22:817 made them flat doubles
04:23:372 added double
04:24:261 - to 04:24:928 originally, yes, no notes for drums, but i added them
Marked as resolved by kilotek
04:09:372
04:09:372 (249372|2,249400|1) - there is not a strong melody sound so it's should not a double grace, it's just should be single.
and 04:09:484 - should be double for strong short melody sound, just similar as 04:08:150 -
Last edited by FLeVI .
04:09:372 (249372|2,249400|1) i had intentionally made this a double grace bc i think it followed the flow of the melodies better this way even tho its not as strong, but i will change it
Marked as resolved by kilotek
04:11:595
04:13:067
04:13:595
04:13:595 (253595|1,253706|3,253817|0,253928|1) - These four sounds are in a group, and 04:13:650 (253650|2) - is ghost note while the actual sound at 04:13:983 - getting missed
04:14:983
04:14:983 - here has a small kick on blue line
04:16:206 - ; 04:18:317 - same
04:19:039 (259039|1,259039|0) - these two prefer like this https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/18716456/2e04
04:19:595 - may better like this arrangement https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/18716464/24fa for here 04:19:650 - 04:19:872 - has a bass melody
04:18:595
04:19:595
04:22:150
04:22:150 - here the strength in rice like this https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/18716470/72c9
But LN may take place, so omitting rice on blue line is acceptable, remain LNs https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/18716476/3528
04:23:428
04:23:817
04:24:928
04:24:928 - The intensity used in this paragraph is a bit strange https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/18716484/7444 , subjectively I think the strong tone is on the white line and the red line.
I think it is necessary to make a distinction, which can be strengthened by LN staggered, I thought of two intensity relationships, for example as follows:
2-2-1-1-3 https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/18716487/9170
3-1-2-1-3 https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/18716490/3fe1
the strong beat also can be can also be emphasized by short anchor
same in the following from 04:24:928 - to 04:28:372 -
04:25:595
04:25:595 (265595|2,265928|2) - is there any necessary to only change these to be note? there is not have a reason to let this expression have change, if it's a gradual expression you also should change more LNs to fit the gradually feel, not only one.
04:28:122
04:28:150
04:28:150 (268150|1,268178|0) - only one melody sound expressed to be grace will be abrupt since 04:28:039 - 04:28:039 - 04:28:150 - 04:28:261 - are same in musical, maybe you should keep them all to be normal double. if you want to express 04:28:150 - 's a bit long melody sound feel, better to change an other way instead of grace.
04:29:372
04:29:372 (269372|0,269372|3,269372|1) - 04:30:261 (270261|2,270261|3,270261|0) - 04:31:150 (271150|0,271150|2,271150|3) - etc, These triples without cymbal feel too much if you just compare them with 04:32:039 (272039|0,272039|3,272039|2) -
04:29:706
04:30:206
04:30:206 (270206|1) - there is not have an actual amen break something sound, this space should be none.
also 04:31:983 (271983|1) - and other similar places.
04:32:039
04:33:817
04:33:817 - One of these long notes should be shortened to 1/4 to match with the long notes at 04:30:261 with the same vocal. Alternatively I'd also suggest having 01:01:901 and 01:04:063 be updated to have a 1/4 long note on one of these to match this, or to have all the 1/4 suggested earlier as a 1/2
04:34:261
04:34:706
04:35:595
04:36:317
04:38:539
04:38:706
04:38:761
04:38:872
04:39:150
04:39:150
04:39:261
04:39:539
i think this note 04:39:539 (279539|3) - is suppose to be an ln like the rest of the notes in this part
04:39:706
04:39:706 (279706|1) - Should be 1/2 length refer to 04:39:261 (279261|3,279483|2,279928|0,280150|3) -
04:40:928
- last quarter 270bpm section *
04:40:928 - 04:42:261: Just a minor suggestion but the earlier notes like 04:41:039 (281039|1,281095|2,281150|3,281261|0,281372|2,281483|3,281595|1,281706|2,281817|0,281928|1,282039|0,282150|2) - should be tighter releases to emphasize the synths being held.
04:41:206
04:41:206 - The obvious 1/4 sound is missing out here, also 04:41:372 (281372|2) - feels kinda weird to be the same others when it just has no melody on it
04:41:261
04:41:261 (281261|1) - there is a sustain melody sound it's better to extend to 04:41:372 -
04:41:372 (281372|2) - is a short melody sound so not suitable to make a longer LN. also 04:41:428 (281428|0) - is not a audible sound so should be remove.
04:41:372
04:41:817
04:41:817 (281817|0,281835|3,281928|1,281946|2,282039|0,282058|3) - there seems better to be flat double to make same expression with 04:42:261 - after melody sounds although they're actually not same type of melody sound.
04:42:206
04:42:706
04:42:706 - to 04:56:928 - I'd make sure you can double check any potential nerfs u can do for anchor usage.
At best when players have to play at 270bpm, focus on comfortability rather than technicality.
Scary anchor 04:44:150 (284150|2,284261|2,284372|2,284483|2,284595|2,284706|2) - idk if you wanna nerf it.
Same for 04:45:706 (285706|0,285872|0,285965|0,286095|0,286187|0,286298|0) - super scary
Last edited by Alter- .
04:42:706
04:42:872
04:42:928
04:42:928 (282928|0,282928|2,282928|3) - 04:42:706 (282706|3,282706|2,282706|0,282706|1) - 04:43:150 (283150|2,283150|1) - on the same sound you put a quad, jump, hand, you need to decide what you want to show this sound.
Marked as resolved by kilotek
04:42:928
04:42:928 - this part sounds exactly the same as 04:00:039 - except with some extra burst sounds yet one is full rice and the other is full ln. I would dare say that the full ln makes it "denser" to the eye as compared to the rice drop (even though the song suggests otherwise)
04:00:039 - It would be better off if you turned this completely into rice instead because the current "three column" inverse style really just feels overexaggerated and convoluted for such a calm area.
Last edited by Neon-Hooray .
why did you use the problem stamp
i think you're not getting what 04:42:928 is going for, which is exclusively the percussion. the layering in the last kiai slowly shifts into the synths/choirs by increasing LN density from none to full.
04:00:039 uses lns for the synths, as i did everywhere in this chart. this section is not meant to be fully calm, nor does the song give off this feeling. its on par with every other buildup to a kiai/drop in the chart, thus it gets the triplet melody of the synths even more accentuated because it's charted as such with some PR elements.
Marked as resolved by kilotek
04:42:956
04:42:956 - 04:56:928: mini suggestion here, the LN doubles representing the melody should be nerfed to single LN for clarity, mostly to also account for the fact that you've been using mostly single LN notes to represent the synths in the buildup before this e.g. 04:00:039 - 04:01:484, so I don't see why you would need to make the motif layering here heavier when the more outstanding part to map is in the bursts. Additionally id say the doubles muddle a bit with your actual rice burst patterns.
Also, this is to buildup towards the later section of this motif because structurally speaking, 04:58:706 - 05:11:150 should be more intense, but it seems like this part is more taxing in terms of technical ability and hand strain right now.
04:43:483
04:43:483 - 04:45:150 - 04:45:706 - etc...
i don't know why you really like to make 1423 trills shape, but personally think this shape is not beautiful on looking. especially 04:43:483 (283483|1,283511|2,283539|0,283567|3,283595|1) - . you can reduce some unnecessary 1423 trills and make them more visual design, like
you're right, it looks better visually, but i dont want to change this because that means changing the gameplay a lot.
the way these 1/8's are made is purposefuly done this way so that the player is forced to hit them as speed, i dont want this to be too manippeable :p
thus, "unorganized" patterns give off a feel of chaos, which i want to portray here since the song has a "mighty" feeling to it
Marked as resolved by kilotek
04:43:521
04:44:261
04:48:095
04:48:095 (288095|0) - siguiendo la formula que ocupas de los drums como en 04:47:039 (287039|1,287039|0,287095|2,287095|3,287150|0,287150|1) -, esta single deberia ser una doble
04:48:456
04:50:039
04:50:650
04:50:983
04:51:595
04:51:817
04:51:928
04:52:261 (292261|3,292317|2,292372|3,292400|2,292483|3,292483|2) - not particularly the LN shield, but the reason why the balance felt off was the same.
here too/
Last edited by Furryswan .
Marked as resolved by kilotek
04:53:150
04:53:650
04:55:372
04:55:817
04:56:132
04:56:132 (296132|0,296298|1) - What's these two irregular burst for? Don't see you use this kind of rare snap in other places of this speedcore part so it looks kinda unatural
04:56:928
04:57:650
04:57:650 - Missing 1/4 sound, and 04:57:983 (297983|3) - ghost note
Also probably reconsider if 04:57:595 (297595|2,297595|0,297817|1,297817|2) - really needs double, they're just way too soft compared with 04:57:483 (297483|1,297483|3) - 04:58:039 (298039|0,298039|2) -
04:58:261
04:58:558
04:58:706
04:58:706 - 05:07:595 - hmm, those placements of two note chords kinda feel a bit random, even though it seems like its going with the melody (pretty vaguely), if you can't decipher when the melody lands exactly with 100% confidence, probably better to just focus on the percussion since 05:07:595 focuses entirely on the percussion, it'll keep the focus consistent
04:58:706
from 04:58:706 - to 05:11:150 -
the current LN density is really have difference, at start 04:58:817 - there is only few LNs, and they're follow the actual melody sounds, but at nearly end example 05:06:483 - there is really heavy LN. in the middle there is usually have some LN burst like 05:00:289 - , seems is simply and deliberately filled with LNs. i mean your whole part is not have a unify expression way to let this part have more logic, you should rebuild a expression logic for this part, like "when should i use LNs, how do i use and arrange these LNs, how to integrate whole part's expression, keep consistent each other, and make minor expression changes on some special places...'"etc. and map it on this whole part.
very very true
this is made on purpose to slowly transition into full ln (duh, the chart is lns and the climax should have a lot of lns)
to me, the transition seems to be smooth as i charted it like this on purpose, but it seems you dont agree
do u think u can point out how i can make this transition smoother?
Marked as resolved by kilotek
05:00:150
05:01:150
05:01:150 - I think it is unnecessary to express the melody here, adding it didn't give obvious difference, just using 1/4 of the drum set is okay https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/18716514/4a60
or you could do like here 05:06:483 (306483|1,306511|0,306539|3,306567|2,306595|1,306650|3) -
Marked as resolved by kilotek
05:01:706
05:01:706 (301706|1) - Some over extended LN like this one would negatively affect the expression that they over-connect the sound than necessary. Seeing the clear structure for main synth at 04:58:706 (298706|0,298706|3,298761|1,298817|2) - 04:59:039 (299039|3,299039|2,299095|0,299150|1) - , i think it could have been made shorter to stay consistent structrally
And there are also some other unclear expressions like 05:03:039 (303039|2,303039|3) - 05:03:261 (303261|2) -
05:02:076
05:02:076 (302076|2,302113|3) - Wonder if it's intended to use LN for the 1/6 burst sound here, basically it's all just pure rice in other places
Also 05:07:187 (307187|1,307224|0,307261|2,307298|3,307409|2,307446|3) -
05:04:928
05:04:928 to 05:07:595 - I would suggest looking into the hand balance here, as the left hand is far more input dense than the right hand, leaving col 4 quite empty. Assuming this low hand balance idea is intended, I'd maybe suggest flipping what hand your 1/1 LN idea starts on at 05:07:595 to 05:11:150 to make the previous pattern flow into this a bit better, and to clean up hand balance
05:05:372
05:05:372 (305372|2,305483|2,305595|2) - trata de no crear estos anchors a la hora de hacer el burst siento que juegan incomodos, aplican tambien para casos similares 05:05:372 (305372|2,305483|2,305595|2,306039|1,306150|1,306261|1) -
05:06:076
05:06:076 (306076|0) - Minor one but what does the 1/6 note here meant for? There is no any burst sound from what i can hear
05:06:817
05:06:817 (306817|0,306817|2,306872|1,306928|2,306928|3) - / 05:02:483 (302483|0,302483|1,302539|2,302595|1,302595|3) - vs 05:04:261 (304261|1,304261|0,304372|0,304372|3) - / 05:06:039 (306039|1,306039|3,306150|2,306150|3) -
i think you're getting kinda inconsistent when it comes to two consecutive main synth, they differ a lot mainly due to how you deal with the 1/4 note in between, and this is something you need to look through whole part to check again
05:07:261
05:07:261 (307261|1,307261|0,307317|3,307335|2,307372|1,307446|2,307483|3,307521|0,307558|1) - meramente subjetivo, no me gusta como estan posicionados los burst ya que estos burst 05:07:317 (307317|3,307335|2,307446|2,307483|3) - se tienen que hacer de la misma mano y me da la impresion de que son bastante incomodos, intenta reordenar esta sección y capaz tengas que reorganizar otras partes si aceptas este mod
05:07:595
05:07:595 - The part is at the end of the climax, I think it can be distinguished from the previous part because it has less kick. You can use the continuous speed, omit a 1/8 rice at the kick position and change the direction of the roll
https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/18716519/dcc5 a reference, or not use double because it's too strong
Last edited by chy030_ft_pH5_6 .
05:11:150
05:11:150 - 05:21:817: If I'm not wrong, you are using a 1/12 flam to represent the synths.
Personally I really really think thats where it becomes very difficult for the player to determine how to play such patterns distinctively when you have 1/12 flams + 1/8 (approximately) bursts happening at the same time. In other words, your layering choice is unclear and at this BPM it only makes players more confused about how you're layering this.
Additionally, I think the sounds here are pretty linear and are not offsync, and it should suffice to just make all the flams representing the synths as flat hands or doubles.
05:11:261 - to 05:14:706 - is a nice start to the ending finale, not too hard playability wise.
05:14:706 - to 05:18:261 - to 05:21:817 - is decent start to density.
Your patterning is mostly seen as rolls and streams, which still isn't the hardest thing; however, you can rearrange the patterning slightly (if possible).
Subconsciously, a player will most likely be draining alot of stamina from these 135bpm jacking.
Like this long anchor on col2, can be rearranged.
Last edited by Alter- .
Once they get to 05:19:595 - is when things get abit out of hand.
When a player has to then start trilling on left and right hands at 270bpm.
Whilst handing long anchors, whilst handling LN, whilst handling odd releases.
and this goes on for about 6 seconds.
The reason this patterning is a problem is it causes players to potentially lose 1-1.5% accuracy from this section alone.
Players don't like being cheated out of accuracy from a pattern that requires more luck to hit from the majority of the playerbase.
I'd suggest finding a way to rearrange the patterning while keeping anchor usage to a minimum, and focusing on streamy patterns and less trills.
Marked as resolved by kilotek
05:11:261
05:11:261 (311261|1,311261|3,311280|0) - 05:11:595 (311595|1,311595|0,311613|3) - etc, similar issue as what i mentioned before at #3905583 many LNs here are being held into a dead length, would suggest to also shorten some of LNs in this section
And after 05:14:706 - probably since 05:14:706 (314706|2,314761|3) - gets shorter by some reason, and other LNs are moreso supported by the rising up echo
05:11:372
Rice notes like 05:11:372 (311372|1,311706|1) - etc should be removed, referring to #3798608, applying 1/2 rices on barely noticeable sound would interrupt the overall straight main synthesizer melodies from 05:11:150 - to 05:12:483 - , which were not stuttering.
05:11:817
05:14:706
05:14:706 - strong beat need to be same with the LN length https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/18716526/8ae3 same in the following
Last edited by chy030_ft_pH5_6 .
05:14:706
05:15:483
05:18:039
05:18:317
05:18:317 - about these graces, in the previous expressions you made grace for melody sounds, but at this place, the graces is not have much relation with melody, the actual melody sound is at 05:18:261 - 05:18:372 - .
i suggest you to make this part like this, this pattern is based on your previous expression 05:14:706 (314706|3,314706|2,314817|3,314835|2) - and it can resolve issues which i said.
now that i think of it, you're right
however, if u look at 05:18:261 (318261|0,318595|3) - you'll notice its very hard to keep the flams on 1/2 if i wanna have the ln for the vocal here aswell, even if its not there exactly, in gameplay it feels visually cohesive, so i will keep this as is
you're 100% right tho
Marked as resolved by kilotek
Reopened by FLeVI
Marked as resolved by kilotek
Reopened by FLeVI
if u slow it down, no not rlly
but i made it like this bc the first 2 notes are still on 1/4, so the modt prominent feelings wheb starting to play it are following the drums, and tbe 1/6 can still be played as manip even if the intention is for it to make a vocal dump that blends in with the drums.
Marked as resolved by kilotek
05:20:502
05:20:502 (320502|2,320706|2,320835|1,321039|1) - The rising up background is there for sure, but i think they're way too minor to warrant this kind of uncomfortable LN gap, especially the whole part is pretty rigid structure, it's just not worth it imo. Both 05:20:502 (320502|2,320539|1) - can be just shortened by a bit, but can still keep the stair release for the sound's feeling
05:21:595
05:22:817
05:22:817 (322817|2,322928|2) - Don't get what does this mean, seems better to just use 1/4 for 05:22:817 (322817|2) -
05:22:928
05:22:928 (322928|1,322965|0,323002|3,323039|2,323095|1,323150|3,323150|0,323187|2,323224|1) - All these burst are just misaligned with what's going on
05:22:965 (322965|0,323002|3,323039|2) - should be 1/4
05:23:039 (323039|2,323095|1,323150|0) - should be 1/6
05:23:150 (323150|3,323187|2,323224|1,323261|0) - should be 1/4
Also probably the one staring at 05:23:150 - should be just in same structure with 05:23:372 (323372|0,323391|1,323428|3,323483|0,323502|2,323539|3) -
05:23:372 (323372|0,323391|1,323428|3,323483|0,323502|2,323539|3) for 05:23:372 (323372|0,323391|1,323428|3,323483|0,323502|2,323539|3) i left out one 1/6 rioght before so it can transition into that
Marked as resolved by kilotek
05:22:928
05:23:595
05:23:595
05:24:409
05:24:483
05:24:483 (324483|1,324511|0,324539|2,324567|3,324595|1,324622|2,324650|3,324678|0,324706|1,324761|0,324817|2,324845|3,324872|1,324900|0,324928|2,324956|1,324983|0,325011|3,325039|2,325095|3,325150|1,325178|0,325206|2,325233|3,325261|1,325289|0,325317|2) - Consider no elsewhere you use long 1/8 burst, it's just way out of line in such a high (270bpm) with not really comfortable pattern
If you still want your pattern to be meaningfully expressing the song i think the best way is to reduce them to 1/6 and think about more straining pattern instead, it might be just me thinking that way tho
05:24:567
I'd watch out for these type of jacks 05:24:567 (324567|3,324650|3,324678|0,324761|0,324900|0,324983|0,325011|3,325095|3) - ruins the aspect of streamy patterns, that left hand seems very tricky compared to right hand etc.
I'd suggest making a more symmetrical pattern.
Similar to what I suggested for #3875324
05:25:150
05:25:150 - here maybe like this https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/18716543/86ed for the same bass while also retaining the inforcement
05:25:261
05:26:928
05:28:483
05:28:928
05:28:928 - to END has some notes slightly off by miliseconds, please review everything is spot on.
I'd also suggest your doubles be turned into singles and your triple be turned into double. They are slightly 1 note too dense, kinda ruins the ending section.
05:28:928 (328928|2,328928|0) - is straight up a ghost note
05:28:996 (328996|1,329064|3,329109|2) - is off by alot
try
This is an example, please go thru and ensure every note is properly timed to the piano.
05:28:928
05:33:104
05:34:109
05:34:109 (334109|1,334143|2) - These are obviously snapped too early
Also just by listening through in 25% this part has many inaccurate snap that could be looked again
I'd move
- 05:31:041 (331041|0) - to 05:31:058 -
- 05:31:178 (331178|3) - to 05:31:160 -
- for 05:31:791 - I'd try
- I'd remove 05:33:189 (333189|3) -
- 05:34:109 - I'd try
- 05:34:553 (334553|0) - to 05:34:570 -
- 05:34:996 (334996|3,334996|2,334996|0) - I'd change to
- 05:35:643 (335643|0) - to 05:35:660 (335660|0) -
- 05:36:291 (336291|2) - to 05:36:308 -
- 05:36:700 (336700|1) - to 05:36:717 -
- 05:37:928 (337928|3) - to 05:37:962 -
- 05:39:837 (339837|2) - can be moved to 05:39:820 - and maybe add a note at 05:39:854 - which would look like
Marked as resolved by kilotek
05:34:126
05:34:160
yeah so there are some timing issues that are pretty obvious cus theyre about a 1/8 or even 1/4 apart from when the note is clearly sounded, or overcompensated for when there are less keystrokes on the piano than notes charted here. here are the ones i found
05:34:160 (334160|1) - i do not hear the piano note you're mapping this to, this should be removed?
05:34:553 (334553|0) - should move to 05:34:621
05:34:996 (334996|3,334996|1,334996|0) - move whole chord to 05:35:064
05:35:643 (335643|0) - to 05:35:678, 05:36:053 (336053|1) - to 05:36:087, 05:36:291 (336291|2) - to 05:36:359, 05:36:700 (336700|1) - to 05:36:768, 05:37:928 (337928|3) - to 05:37:996
I checked it, seems fine with my offset being at 0
I also made a post about this #3893542/10412655
Last edited by Alter- .
tho I'd take notice of 05:31:143 (331143|3,331178|2,331876|3,331893|2,332405|3,332439|2,333155|3,333189|2,334143|2,334178|3) -
Prob want to listen to the pitches and arrange the grace notes slightly
05:32:405 (332405|3,332439|2,333155|3,333189|2,334143|2,334178|3) - have different pitches than
05:31:109 (331109|3,331143|2,331842|3,331859|2) - etc
Last edited by Alter- .
Marked as resolved by kilotek
05:34:996
05:34:996 (334996|3,334996|0,334996|1,334996|2) - te recomendaría que en este quad lo dejaras como una doble o como tenias las notas antes en 1/12 (opcional)