Hi ,
Mod from my queue.
I'm sorry if i'm late but a lot of mutuals asked me for mod and they are priority. Also i know a good modder is supposed to understand the way a mapper map but i'm sorry i didn't understand yours so i apologise for all the time i will go against it in my mod without noticing it.
[Normal]
Placement/Aesthetic
Placement/Aesthetic
Placement/Aesthetic
Mod from my queue.
I'm sorry if i'm late but a lot of mutuals asked me for mod and they are priority. Also i know a good modder is supposed to understand the way a mapper map but i'm sorry i didn't understand yours so i apologise for all the time i will go against it in my mod without noticing it.
[Normal]
Placement/Aesthetic
- 01:25:762 (2,3,4,5,6,1) - Only this part bugs me. I didn't find any problem in the diff except this. 2 and 3 don't make a good blanket compared to 00:41:429 (4,5) or every other blanket in the map, 01:26:428 (3,4,5) this back and forth feels weird because the whole map there is a really smooth flow so it feel weird seeing you using a pattern like this at the end of the map and finally 01:27:763 (6,1) here too it's not wrong but feels at this opposite of the way you mapped the diff with this non-smooth flow. (I'm not sure if i explain it well). Anyway, i suggest to remap these 6 objects.
- 01:37:429 (1,2) - Why stacking? You always use a x0.1 spacing instead of stack throughout your whole diff. Is it because it's a 2/1 gap instead of 1/1 for the other gap? It still feels weird for me this change of pattern. But if you don't want to maybe you could still add a note at 01:37:762 at the middle and do your x0.1 spacing on 3 notes like 01:30:762 (1,2,3).
Placement/Aesthetic
- 00:14:429 (4) - I find all the pattern really good but this slider killed everything imo. Look at 00:10:762 (1,2,3,4) and 00:12:095 (1,2,3,4). Each time the 1/4 slider goes in the same "general direction" as the 3 previous sliders. Here it don't do it. Why? It kills the pattern and it gives also a weird flow. You could have donne something like this:
But on the contrary 00:15:762 (4) don't bother me because it ends the pattern so you don't expect some thing like 00:11:762 (4,1,4,1) and the flow from 3 to 4 is normal. - 00:36:429 (2,3) - The flow from 2 to 3 bother me. I find it weird too. Maybe change it like this:
- 00:42:761 (1) - Why the spacing here is only x0.8 when it's x1.3 througout the map? If it's an anti-jump you usally do them like 00:16:595 (2,3) si idk.
- 00:48:428 (1) - ^ It doesn't bother me when there is a 2/1 gap like at 00:45:929 (2,1) but when it's 1/1 i find them disturbing. If it was a mapping style i would understand but sometimes there aren't there like 00:51:262 (2,3) or 00:56:595 (2,3) so i don't understand this choice.
- 00:51:761 (3,1) - etc.....
- 01:00:762 (4,1,2) - You put jump at 00:58:762 (1,2,3) so why not here too?
- 01:14:429 (4,1) - Stacked and not spacing x0.1 like 01:20:429 (1,2) and.... everywhere else in the map?
Placement/Aesthetic
- 00:39:095 (2) - Maybe rotate it 90° like this:
Like this i think it feels more natural to go to 3 instead of when the slider is pointing at.... I'm not sure if i use the right words but i hope you understand what i mean.