1. all diff start spinner gradually raise volume? I like~

1. 01:28:426 (1) - how about this?
2. nice diff!

1. 00:14:176 (5) - add new combo
2. 00:32:926 - add note

1. 00:16:239 (1,2) - change to slider?

1. 01:19:989 (1) - too hard newbie players stack please move this
   

S o r d a wrote:

[overall]:

1. all diff start spinner gradually raise volume? I like~ Good suggestion, used :3

[Hard]:

1. 00:14:176 (5) - add new combo no, break my combo pattern
2. 00:32:926 - add note weird to me ;_;

[Normal]:

1. 00:16:239 (1,2) - change to slider? ok

popner wrote:

[D.N.Angel]
many complex jump, so AR+1? //hmm...ok
00:58:239 (2) - unexpected pause. move it to somewhere like 124,148? or add a repeat on 00:57:489 (1)? //I like this part,so no change ><

That's all I can find. GL~

284,164,42489,6,0,B|292:116|356:76|420:116|428:164,2,200,4|2|0

SPOILER

Weezy wrote:

Yaaay Amagami :3

Normal
00:14:176 (4) - Suggestion. Possibly add another repeat. Hmm, ok, let's see this repeat can do. But if this can be confusing, i will remove it.
01:25:614 - Add a hit circle with a clap here, keeps the flow going imo nope, i don't see any rythim that can be followed here.
01:28:614 (6,1) - Make these into a slider goes better. Sure, since two people has already mention this.

Hard
00:14:739 - Add a hit circle here. Sure
00:43:801 (5,1) - Don't stack these, seems really clustered Nah, i don't think so
00:47:645 (2,3) - Stack these 2 makes it flow better Sure.
00:56:176 (5) - Really an unexpected jump here. Nope, it can be handeld


That's all.

I provide you with the delicious Haruka Morishima Err, what is this? >.<

SPOILER

Weezy wrote:

D.N.Angel
- Change the AR back to 8. 9 makes this map a huge mess and really unplayable. Had fun playing this with AR8 >.< //ok..
00:10:801 (1) - Reverse this so it flows coming to this slider and also going to the next. //I think previous one is better
01:23:176 (2,3,4) - Don't stack 3,4 with the tail of 2. Feels strange when playing. //It is ok for me

HeatKai wrote:

dat avatar.

Bass wrote:

[Normal]

4,18 star rating...
Tried to play around with settings, that didn't help. I guess BPM causes that thing and I understand fact it's hard to map normal with that speed.

1. 00:43:614 (2,3,4) - I strongly prefer to avoid making something like that in Normal, I'd rather have it stacked or make slider with repeat there. nope, this is not a problem in normal diff
2. 01:01:989 (4) - slider repeat on there sounds awkward, there rather vocals prevails than guitar so makes feel kinda out of place IMO.
   There 01:06:489 (1) - for example it sounds ok due to vocal matches with 1/4 snapped guitar. So putting repeat on slider which I've mentioned before on 1/2 snap would sound much better. (remember to make two repeats then) I don't think this rythim is weird. Sorry
3. 01:13:239 (2,3,4) - again, wouldn't recommend that for Normal diff no
4. 01:16:426 (4) - move it back to x: 256 y:56 , looks much better hmm, ok.

[Hard]

1. 00:14:176 (5) - nc I don't see your point.
2. 00:19:051 (2) - move that to x: 96 y: 192 don't forget to fix spacing after then
3. 00:38:364 (3,4) - move these to x: 172 y: 320, then:
4. 00:38:926 (5,6) - move these x: 340 y: 320, it will look then kind of symetrical. nazi with unreasonable thing
5. 00:44:176 (2,3,4) - this triplet doesn't follow anything, I suggest removing 00:44:270 (3) nope, if you see the rythim, it's consistant

CDFA wrote:

Insane:
The only issues I have are with your mapping style //you can comment it

Leorda wrote:

[D.N.Angel]
01:15:864 (3) - Because you stack at head slider of (4), it makes me lost while gameplay. Stack with 01:15:301 (5)? //no

Bass wrote:

[D.N.Angel]

1. 00:41:176 (2,3,4,5,6,7) - are you really sure about this? It's a bit confusing //I like this part ><

Kawayi Rika wrote:

Red : Must be fixed
Pink : Should be fixed

Miya wrote:

Must : you must fix it no matter what your argumen you have. It means Rika mention something unrankable.
Should : Rika suggest thing that can improve the map much much better. But if you don't agree with Rika said, you can ignore it.

HeatKai wrote:

Miya wrote:

Must : you must fix it no matter what your argumen you have. It means Rika mention something unrankable.
Should : Rika suggest thing that can improve the map much much better. But if you don't agree with Rika said, you can ignore it.

then how about SHOULD and SUGGESTIONS = =

Miya wrote:

Should, it means quite important to look at, at least take a look on it first
Suggestion, you can ignore it even haven't take a look on it.

1. 00:42:239 (165) - SV decrease makes this object very hard to read. Does it even belong there (the sv change and/or the object)?
2. 01:05:739 - Taiko maps also shouldn't have Kiai resets.

those wrote:

Offset is bad. Taiko play gives me at about 18-20ms late; you need about +18 to your offset.

Miya wrote:

Sorry, will not change the offset. I feel my offset is better.

those wrote:

Miya wrote:

Sorry, will not change the offset. I feel my offset is better.

Look, it's not a matter of mapping style or anything. The offset is wrong, you can't argue that. There's no "opinion" on that.

HeatKai wrote:

my best offset is 485 for this beatmap.
after I recheck

Mythol wrote:

hmm.. I'm getting +9 offset (498)
maybe find a pro timer? ><

Kawayi Rika wrote:

OK ~ fixed wrong artist name ~

Rebubbled ~

those wrote:

Offset is bad. Taiko play gives me at about 18-20ms late; you need about +18 to your offset.

[Taiko]

1. 00:42:239 (165) - SV decrease makes this object very hard to read. Does it even belong there (the sv change and/or the object)?
2. 01:05:739 - Taiko maps also shouldn't have Kiai resets.

1. The reason why your star rating is so high is because you used a lot of 1/2 rhythms, not because the song is so fast.
2. 01:22:989 (1,2) - Since you've been using 1/2 rhythms throughout the whole song anyway, you should end these 1/2 earlier to fit music.

1. 00:42:239 (165) - again, not fixed, or not enough justification for this object. There's no reason for this to be a 1/3 rhythm; it should be on the 1/4 before or after.

those wrote:

Offset is bad. Taiko play gives me at about 18-20ms late; you need about +18 to your offset.

Yasora wrote:

keep 1/1 consistent

Miya wrote:

Can you respect other mapper opinion those? You just forcing your mod to other people.
And your word is not polite at all. That can hurt mapper feeling.

those wrote:

Miya wrote:

Can you respect other mapper opinion those? You just forcing your mod to other people.
And your word is not polite at all. That can hurt mapper feeling.

There's opinion, and there's music. Which would you rather follow?

Haruka wrote:

Not only does it play badly, but you're mapping to a song, not making your own beats.

those wrote:

Consistently not following the music? That's not mapping.

DarknessAngel wrote:

It follows the music,and the rhythm is good to a beginner
I don't think it needs to change

Can you stop forcing mappers to fix what you disagreed ?
it just proves you are not only arrogant but selfish,man

Yasora wrote:

what's wrong with you, those?
I think since you become mat, you just like a different person =~=

Miya wrote:

And your word is not polite at all. That can hurt mapper feeling.

DarknessAngel wrote:

Miya wrote:

And your word is not polite at all. That can hurt mapper feeling.

Yasora wrote:

ok whatever
in the last, I already fix that part.. omg

Makar wrote:

Maybe I'll mod this later...

Xakyrie wrote:

Makar wrote:

Maybe I'll mod this later...

if they were concerned with quality, they would accept it but if they want a rebubble so bad, it's really their choice...
Feel free to mod it before it re-bubbled.

[Hard]

• just a pointer, but...
  

1. 00:00:489 (1,1) - this is a bit hard to play, maybe end the spinner two ticks earlier (previous white tick)? Nope, this is hard. There's no issue in hard if i place a note 1/2 tick after spinner.

no kudosu of course, just a pointer.

Xakyrie wrote:

I hope this will be beneficial to you. ＼(>o<)ノ

All of the following suggestions are made based on the most recent update for each colour-coded section. If a section is excluded from one diff but included in another, this is because there are no problems or suggestions to be made and therefore is removed.

[General]

1. a few things in each diff are slightly hard to predict and read. It's not a problem. Whole mapset doesn't have to be easy to read.
2. even while sitting in the editor you can hear the offset is off. I'm still averaging a pretty high number for being late, how much did you actually fix it (since you didn't specify)? I'm using those offset. ._.

[Normal]

• Song Setup
  (Suggestions for appropriate difficulty based on the song to offer more fluent and comfortable playing.)
  

1. slider velocity is really high for a song like this...I would expect you to use a lower one but because it would take so much work to fix and it's already up to this point, I guess it's not too big a deal and is fine to keep. It's not like it's completely outrageous or anything, just highly suggested. It's fine. 1.4 sv is fine for normal diff.
2. HP drain +1?

Beatmap Design/Arrangement
(The basis of the map, such as flow, consistency, and aesthetic design are found here.)

1. spacing in itself is a bit much... next time consider using 1.0 or something much smaller @_________@ Sorry, i'm not fan of low spacing. It's also fit with the sv too.
2. 00:07:819 (3,4) - you could turn this into a 1/1 slider (starting at 3) so it's easier to read.. the high SV and spacing makes this a bit unpredictable to start. (you'll have to fix the placement too) Nope. The polarity is good at this one. So it not hard to read.
3. 00:10:632 (2,3) - this kind of thing will definitely increase star rating. you could replace with a note and 1/1 slider to fit the rhythm whiled decreasing the amount of pausing and predicting a player will need to do here. ^
4. 00:16:257 (1,2,3) - huge gaps are hard to predict even if the spacing is correct. fill this in (you can be creative, just make sure it flows because this really does break it). Nah. It's fine.
5. 00:22:819 (3) - remove? or you could just make this stack a 1/1 slider... No, fit with the music.
6. 00:24:882 (1,2,3) - you wouldn't have to do this to lower star difficulty if your settings were properly adjusted to suit a normal...you could just use a series of 1/1 sliders o.o What's the problem of this note? It's easy to read. Nope.
7. 00:36:882 (1,2,3) - ^ ^
8. 00:38:944 (4) - to be consistent with the previous part like this, make it one repeat and then add a note on the downbeat. repeat sliders with more than one repeat used like that while also using repeat sliders with only one repeat can become confusing. Instead of adding a note to fill this emptiness, you could start a 1/1 slider on the downbeat, and a note in the middle of the two downbeats here. Good point. Fixed
9. 01:25:632 (x) - note? Nope.
10. 01:28:632 (6) - this plays really awkwardly after the previous sequence of 1/1 sliders and notes in-between. replace it with a 5/6 repeat slider possibly, it fits the song but not sure if you want this... Nope, the polarity is good at this one. It's easy to read.

Hitsounds
(Listed sounds can be used as an overture, so feel free to ignore unless further noted. Based on mapper's style.)

1. 00:47:944 (5) - no finish on the end or anything? Too loud. I don't like it.
2. 01:03:507 (1) - finish on the end to keep consistent? ^

New Combos
(Used to introduce a new phrase and/or pattern, the following suggest consistency within your map.)

1. 00:15:132 (5,1) - new combo, remove new combo? nope
2. 01:20:007 (3,1) - ^ nope.

[Hard]

• Beatmap Design/Arrangement
  (The basis of the map, such as flow, consistency, and aesthetic design are found here.)
  

1. 00:00:507 (1,1) - I cannot stress enough how annoying this is to play. My first playthrough without looking and I instantly was caught off-guard. I had two other people test it for me and the same thing happened and both agreed that this should be moved two ticks back. I do agree it's a hard, but this, it's more for an insane. It's quite ambiguous, but really... it should be moved so it's easier to read and less restarting at the beginning (there's no excuse, people who tested are not noobs either). Even more so, the insane diff (rather, D.N.Angel's diff) is easier to read because of the timing between the spinner and the first note, which should indicate to you what you should do about this. Nope. it's still fine.
2. 00:43:069 (2,3,4) - triple is kinda unnecessary and sounds sort of weird here. No, it's consistant with the next triplet.
3. 00:53:944 (4,5,6) - instead of doing this, you could try a note where (4) is and a 1/4 repeat at (6)? nope
4. 01:09:694 (1,2,3) - much better to play if they were aligned straight like most other triples and 5 note streams o.o Nope, it's fine.
5. 01:23:007 (1) - the inconsistency from here makes the map hard to read. it takes any map from a high to a low, so I suggest you try making it more consistent somehow. here's an idea of how to fix the first phrase of the end. listen to the music, I know you can come up with something a lot better than this to end this diff. What's not consistent? The triplet? It doens't have to be consistant.

Hitsounds
(Listed sounds can be used as an overture, so feel free to ignore unless further noted. Based on mapper's style.)

1. 00:41:569 (5) - finish. ok
2. 00:56:757 (6) - remove? no finish is called for. Fit with the music.
3. 01:08:757 (8) - ^ ^

New Combos
(Used to introduce a new phrase and/or pattern, the following suggest consistency within your map.)

1. 00:47:007 (4,1) - new combo, remove new combo? this section here you should notice the way you started new combos, starting on downbeats. No need, keeping combo consistencies at this point.
2. 01:00:319 (5) - new combo? nope
3. 01:14:382 (1,2,3) - remove new combo on (1), new combo on (3)? Good point. Fixed.

Miya wrote:

Xakyrie wrote:

00:00:507 (1,1) - I cannot stress enough how annoying this is to play. My first playthrough without looking and I instantly was caught off-guard. I had two other people test it for me and the same thing happened and both agreed that this should be moved two ticks back. I do agree it's a hard, but this, it's more for an insane. It's quite ambiguous, but really... it should be moved so it's easier to read and less restarting at the beginning (there's no excuse, people who tested are not noobs either). Even more so, the insane diff (rather, D.N.Angel's diff) is easier to read because of the timing between the spinner and the first note, which should indicate to you what you should do about this. Nope. it's still fine.

Xakyrie wrote:

I do agree it's a hard, but this, it's more for an insane. It's quite ambiguous, but really... it should be moved so it's easier to read and less restarting at the beginning (there's no excuse, people who tested are not noobs either). Even more so, the insane diff (rather, D.N.Angel's diff) is easier to read because of the timing between the spinner and the first note, which should indicate to you what you should do about this.

Miya wrote:

Nope. It's fine.
Case closed~

Makar wrote:

Part of being a good mapper/modder is giving reasons for denying suggestions

Xakyrie wrote:

[D.N.Angel]

• Beatmap Design/Arrangement
  (The basis of the map, such as flow, consistency, and aesthetic design are found here.)
  

1. 00:09:882 (2) - for better flow, reverse the start/end. //no
2. 00:10:444 (4,1) - ^ both of these, too. //no
3. 00:23:569 (3) - ^ //no...
4. 00:32:569 (3) - ^ //^
5. 00:50:007 (1) - ^ //^
6. 00:52:444 (x) - a note here so it's consistent and adds to flow. //I want to follow the vocal
7. 00:58:069 (x) ^ //there are nothing I can follow ...
8. 00:59:382 (2,3,4,5,6) - done so wrong. half of it is following something and the other half isn't. a good idea would be to move this whole highlighted section back two ticks and work with it from there, just follow the music then fix the placement of things. //no
9. 01:02:194 (1,2) - flip these two or rearrange them? the flow here is really off. //no...
10. 01:16:632 (x) - for the sake of consistency, fill this in please. //it can't follow anything - -
11. 01:21:882 (2) - flip this around? you'll need to fix 01:22:444 (3) too if you follow, if you do (which I hope), fix it so you can allow more room for flow and consistency. //still no
12. 01:23:007 (1) - from here to the end is really inconsistent and hard to follow; no comment... ._. //the rhythm should be these -.-

Hitsounds
(Listed sounds can be used as an overture, so feel free to ignore unless further noted. Based on mapper's style.)

1. 00:07:444 (4) - remove?
2. 00:08:944 (5,6,7) - clap should be on (5), not (7).
3. 00:12:038 (6,7) - whistle on (7) instead of (6)?
4. 00:12:882 (3) - remove on the end?
5. 00:14:382 (1) - remove on the end?
6. 00:47:569 (2,3) - flip whistle placement?
7. 01:27:694 (1) - are you sure the whistles from here to the end fit?

New Combos
(Used to introduce a new phrase and/or pattern, the following suggest consistency within your map.)

1. 00:52:632 (1,2) - remove new combo, new combo?
2. 01:00:319 (8,1) - new combo, remove new combo?
3. 01:12:319 (5,1) - ^
4. 01:13:819 (6,1) - ^
5. 01:17:382 (1) - remove new combo?

Xakyrie wrote:

I can't even quote the things that need to be said.

So basically, this is what I understand from you guys. You expect us to give good reasons as to why we suggest a change in your maps, but you aren't obligated to do the same because you don't feel you should have to.

HeatKai wrote:

not me D: I fix most of it ! D:


btw awesome ava cherry ;3

Xakyrie wrote:

I can't even quote the things that need to be said.

So basically, this is what I understand from you guys. You expect us to give good reasons as to why we suggest a change in your maps, but you aren't obligated to do the same because you don't feel you should have to. What is your reasoning for this? Our reasons for offering and persisting in our pursuit of these things is because we want to see change. Change for what? Change for the better. Suggestions are made to improve your map, not make them complete and utter shit, which you might think it is. You blatantly ignored several mods (both of you) without any good reason, and I would expect you to give the same amount of respect back to the modders who modded because it does not help anyone. People want to know why their suggestions are wrong, or why you choose to differ in your stance. You have the nerve to confront people about how rude they are to you because they are trying to tell you that there is indeed an issue in need of fixing, when your position is merely the same: you yourselves are rude too.

Ignoring mods because you don't have to listen to minors is a bad attitude to have. What if we, the minors in the community, have helpful tips to offer you? Because we're not in any state to tell you otherwise, you decide not to listen because it will hurt your ego? Is it really that bad to accept truly beneficial mods from people who aren't technically qualified? I get the feeling that deceptive, egotistical front you put up is more important than anything to you both. It might be too much of a pain to accept mods from others because it will hurt your pride, won't it?

So don't think you're out of the hot water. I guess I'm not really in any position to tell you what to do, but things need to be said. Maybe you don't realize how much of a fool you made yourself look here. I don't mean to bring this into matters again, but that spinner in Miya's hard diff seriously needs to change because of it's inconsistency within the mapset and because it is extremely hard to read in contrast to the insane diff D.N.Angel provided. Either D.N.Angel changes the timing between the spinner and the first note to 1/2 or vice versa, or you could not heed this and continue to make maps that will make players furious (because really, that spinner is ridiculously hard to read and recover from at that level). I hope you take this into consideration in the future because both of your attitudes are pathetic and sadly hypocritical.


If this hurts your feelings, you obviously have a list of things to work on, don't you?

DarknessAngel wrote:

I just wanna say "you don't understand how a mappers made their map" . It means "you don't understand me at all"

Weezy wrote:

DarknessAngel wrote:

I just wanna say "you don't understand how a mappers made their map" . It means "you don't understand me at all"

Same way can be said about how you went about with this mod (and with any mod too!) Go at a mod with an open mind and if you don't agree with it provide a legitimate reason to back it up. Saying just "no" is soo rude it just puts a negative image on you and makes you look like a giantasshole. Stop being so butt hurt, mods are to improve your map not make them a shitty mess.

DarknessAngel wrote:

I just wanna say "you don't understand how a mappers made their map" . It means "you don't understand me at all"

Weezy wrote:

Same way can be said about how you went about with this mod (and with any mod too!)

DarknessAngel wrote:

Modding : "it can be a good flow"
Reply : "no" ; "no,I think it is fine" ; "no,I don't want to change this" ; "no,I think mine is better"
Do you think there are any different ?