Musty wrote:

This is concerning the hardest difficulty. It's mostly suggestions:
00:53:735 (4,5,6,7,8,9,10) - it doesn't feel obvious while playing for me but i think it's alright? Yeah, suggested by nold and I quite liked it.
01:20:306 (3,4,1) - 01:21:163 (3,4,1) - 01:27:163 (3,4,1) - this is not fun to play because the music actually seems to be have a fast paced rhythm which is stable here, so it feels like you have to go faster because the map is like that and it's not really fun to play to be honest but everyone else liked it ;__; i prefer to keep it for now
02:28:163 (4) - put the note a bit slightly lower because it feels like its as close as the previous one fixed for Ends since i don't think it's a big deal
03:15:449 (1,1,1,1,2,1,2,1,1,1,1,1,2,1,2,1) - This is uber creative but i don't like that kind of stuff which is pretty surprising while playing sightread. just hanzer being hanzer B) jokes aside he liked it so no change,,,


everything else on the difficulty is absolutely perfect i love this one so much

Static Noise Bird wrote:

Just a few things here before it's ready to go.

[general_]
The ending spinner could start at the same point in all diffs (kyversible-insane and normal are inconsistent with the other three).
The widescreen support should probably be unticked in the diffs that don't have SB. it's actually intentional to left them all ticked
Slightly concerned about the hard/insane gap, but we'll see how it goes. only qats gets concerned by diff spread :^)

[easy_]
03:02:592 (3,4) - The DS. The. Rotate (4,5) by 25-40 degrees, snap to an appropriate distance and we're good. The.

[hard_]
00:44:592 (3) - NC.
01:24:020 (5) - ^ done both

[insane_]
inverness [✓]

[apofluxus_]
(✓?_?)✓

Poke (preferably via THElegram) when you've updated this and let's get the party started.
e

Desperate-kun wrote:

After internal discussion, we decided to disqualify this mapset over the following concerns.

[apoplexy_]

All of the issues below apply to the first part of the collab, mapped by inverness.

Some of the rhythms need improvement in terms of circle-slider composition, as they don't reflect the song's rhythm well. For example, 00:51:449 (1,2,3,4) - would make more sense like this: http://puu.sh/hrEG1/491fbcdb6c.jpg as the two beats emphasized by the song here, 00:51:878 and 00:52:163 -, would both be clickable then. It will make the pattern play more intuitively.
Other examples:
00:53:163 (1,2,3,4) -
00:58:306 (1,2,3,4) -
01:05:163 (1,2,3,4) -

i don't really see your point between bad song reflection (or whatever you call it) with the patterns themselves. judging from your suggestion, is it because the sliders didn't start on white ticks or something? also for the emphasis beats you stated, if those are really emphasis, you missed 00:51:735 - which basically sounds the same like the emphasis beats as you stated. therefore, it's not really an emphasis, at least for me. my patterns worked out well, considering everyone didn't really see them as much of an issue.

01:20:306 (3,4,1) - While these kind of 1/4 jumps are generally a nice and challenging gimmick, some of them happen to not play very smoothly due to weird transitions, which makes them unpleasant to play. Examples would be:
01:28:020 (3,4,1) -
01:21:163 (3,4,1) -

these are not 1/4 lol
please enlighten me on what you said by "weird transition" and "unpleasant gameplay" because again, nobody (including me) had any problems whatsoever with it

[Normal]

Be careful with short multiple-repeat sliders. As they are very short, players of this level are not able to read when the slider will end. Therefore, the patterns involving them need to have simple, easily readable placement, that doesn't involve going back over the slidertrack, stacking or anything similar. Examples:
01:21:735 (5,1) -
02:43:735 (6,1) -

Additionally, there are some tiny spacing errors in this difficulty, sometimes caused by stacking, that make objects touch each other slightly although they are not supposed to, which should be fixed to avoid confusion and to make the map more polished. Examples:
00:53:163 (1,2) -
01:30:878 (4,5) -

Sorry that it took so long. We wish you the best of luck with your mapset!

Lizzy wrote:

you can't be serious same

EDIT: it appears like it's never too late to give feedback... and boooy, i think it really does need some. lol i could have actually mapped a diff by now.

SPOILER

Yes, I might just have about 1000pp, but that doesn't mean I can't play this diff. I've played it up to here with not many problems and found it surprisingly comfortable to play. I happen to have just about enough playing experience to be able to give my gameplay-based opinion about this map. And if I've seen correctly the past half year, ranking maps is based on how well they play, correct? Well, at least allow me to contribute to this.

02:26:878 (2,1) - This is painful to play. What I'd do is a triple on a slider instead. Something like this maybe. If necessary, increase spacing from (3) to (4) and accordingly to next (1). it's actually very fun to play ; _;
02:28:592 (5,1) - This is even more painful.. ow it hurts. I see your thought why it's not just a five-objects stream but instead ending with a slider, because you can hear that sound in the music as well. The problem is, you need to hold the cursor on the slider since it's facing left, but the next object is on the right side. It'll be a lot better to make a blanket out of it, like this. ends probably treating it like the previous beat but with some added emphasis or something like that
02:32:592 (1,2,3,1) - Liked this pattern! cool job! TANK
02:34:592 (2,1) - Questionable spacing... I'm not gonna say anything about it other than it's questionable since it's still sort of playable. tuned down a bit
02:35:163 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,1) - I dislike the spacing here and the direction the stream is leading. 02:34:735 (1,2) - These objects suggest cursor movement towards the lower center of the playfield. If that stream were to be Ctrl G'd and accordingly spaced, it'd go down in the twinkling of an eye. I'd make it less curved as well, in that case. It's quite playable nonetheless, but I'm on about the looks instead. it's ok THO
02:36:735 (2,1) - I would have preferred a triple leading into (1). ends seemingly map these kind of beat this way so i'd just leave it as it is
02:40:306 (1) - I do not see reason at all why this shouldn't be a circle. It's just making the pattern more complicated than it has to be. Explain please? i think it's like, there's this steep pitch change here and the slider kinda accompanies that w/e
02:40:735 (1,2,3) - This looks, feels and plays out of place. The distance from (2) to (3) is truly exaggerated in comparison to the combo before and in my opinion is not justified. pattern emphasis?
02:41:592 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - I find this pattern extra-ordinarily bad since it's deliberately inversely arranged, facing in one direction and having a triple at the end where the pattern started, with the SAME time gap between the objects. I would have instead applied a triangle structure, leaving the player to less complicated jump, like this. loool idk this is like the default way winber maps
02:42:878 (1,1) - This is antijumping at its finest... not. This is completely counter-intuitive to the player's anticipation and looks bad. maybe he's trying to map a less jumpy pattern or something?!??! either way i'm not sure how to tweak this out without changing the flow entirely
02:42:306 (7,1,2,3,1) - Doesn't play well for me either. Don't know about others, I'm solely sure about myself. idk lmao
02:46:306 (1,2,3,4,1) - The triple is facing a different way than the general flow is (next pattern). back & forth flow style
02:46:735 (1,2,3,1) - The flow issue from before results here in troubling gameplay as the cursor is required to move precisely here. the slider is there to normalize movement i think!??!? hence slow sv
02:49:592 (3) - I would have loved to see this as a circle instead. And tbh I don't see reason why this shouldn't be a circle. I see more reason against making it a slider, since it's pausing cursor movement, however briefly. i would tweak it but sadly i see no way to recreate the whole pattern without destroying the current flow ;___;
02:50:163 (1,2,3,4,1,2,1,2,1,2) - Neat idea here, though! same
02:52:306 (1,2,3,4) - Emphasis is put on wrong points with wrong objects. I would have just left six circles here, 2x3 circles (as in, 2 combos à 3 circles). Maybe like this. It really doesn't matter what way you arrange (triangles or unfinished squares) or space them (3 circles even, jump, 3 circles even, another jump to next combo).
02:58:306 (1,1) - I dislike playing this pattern due to the second slider ending waaay somewhere else, as in, not anywhere near the next slider start.
02:59:163 (1,2,3) - TBH, Ctrl G on this plays better imo.
03:01:735 (1,1,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3) - Wonderful pattern! =^-^= same

Also liked how uncomplicatedly Hanzer's part went down, nice job overall on the diff!