m4m reply
gl with that set
gifdium
00:01:351 (1,2,1,2) - why the big disparity in spacing for the 1-2 jumps? music doesnt suggest it at all
also the whole way you nc stuff here makes no sense to me
you nc this 00:01:351 (1,2,1,2) - which means according to that you should also 00:04:365 (3) -
musically it would make much more sense to nc this intro like this for example http://i.imgur.com/N1Hlakw.jpg
00:15:324 (6,1,2) - this its how it will be played, doesnt really seem nice for me http://i.imgur.com/8LRuNNF.png
Just move stuff a bit and curve 6 to get a much nicer angle http://i.imgur.com/MlDOSru.png and now dont tell me "but now the spacing to 1 is lower" with the way the previous slider is played by 90% of the playerbase it doesn't make a real difference
00:17:898 (2,4) - why are they spaced way differently, or even more important, why are they spaced at all? It is already a bit much having them clickable imo since they are basically continuations of 1/3, at least stack them under those to lower the impact of having them clickable
00:20:227 (4) - skipped 1/4 here hurts, make it a repeating 1/4 slider instead
00:30:644 (3,4) - the musical pattern from 1-2-1-2-1-2 continues and so should yours
also using some kicksliders for those taps that have 1/4 after them here would feel really nice. doesnt impact playbility and makes the drum 1/4 not feel so ignored
I see you like doing those overlaps 00:33:383 (2,3,4,5,6) - quite often in your map
nothing inherently wrong with them, I like how most of them play and use them myself too
!but
you should really have a consistent spacing for those (it shouldnt even take 10 minutes to make it sth. like ctzrl-g some notes - set ~0.3ds - ds them - ctrlg back and it will look much more polished, currently it looks all over the place
Before: http://i.imgur.com/p26SzJh.jpg
After: http://i.imgur.com/R2QSvhg (if the distance of sth like 5-6 is too low then move 5 - the note not used in the overlap)
and your distance for those varies greatly the whole time. a .1 change in ds on those spots doesnt really impact playability but it looks much nicer and not just like you threw some jumps there that happened to overlap
here for example it is extremely noticeable: 00:36:945 (2,3,4,1,2,3,1,2,1,2,3) - or 00:49:822 (2,3,4,5,6,7,1,2,3) -
00:38:589 (1,2,3,4) - you seem to map the vocals here, fine. But why is this not the biggest jump 00:38:863 (2,3) -, actually 00:38:589 (1,3,1) - should have the highest ds according to the vocals if you listen to them and how the syllables/tone and all goes
00:40:096 (2) - either stack on 3 or delete 3 and make 1/1 slider, since you are still mapping the vocals it seems that would make much more sense
00:40:507 (4) - can be spaced higher in relation cause new syllable/word thing and strong drum beat
00:44:890 - really strong vocal and instrumental, yet not clickable????????
00:47:630 (3,3) - such impactful drum hits, feels wrong to me to have them stacked, some trangular pattern would fit the music better imo. you could keep the current one for the piano and all, but adding small jumps on the 3s that go towards the next 1 would fit even better with the instruments and since they go back towards the next note they dont make it that much harder, example I did in 5 seconds: http://i.imgur.com/JTbe3S8.jpg
00:49:000 (3,4) - they would feel so much better fitting for the viiolions (or whatever the instrument is) if you used higher sv since it sounds really fast and high pitched. if you do that move the nc from 00:48:589 (1) - to 00:48:931 (2) - since that will look nicer as you would have to nc before the changed sv sliders anyways
00:50:644 (1) - if you put vocal // 3/4 sliders like this that end on empty blue ticks, at least make the ending less audible (20% or 10% volume) it feels so wrong cause they create a weird artificial rhythm and feel overmapped if you dont
01:12:287 (6) - sudden wide angles like this play really shitty and it is a really strong drum beat again that should be spaced further anyways maybe sth like
http://i.imgur.com/oIxSTaQ.jpg or http://i.imgur.com/7ufjjct.jpg
01:18:315 (3,6,2,5) - the difference in how those are arranged on each other feels extremely strange
well, most of the stuff I pointed continues throughtout the map so you should take a good look :v
at least fix some spacing/angles and the overlap aesthetics, then it could become a decent (or maybe better) map since the "core" looks okay
00:01:351 (1,2,1,2) - why the big disparity in spacing for the 1-2 jumps? music doesnt suggest it at all
also the whole way you nc stuff here makes no sense to me
you nc this 00:01:351 (1,2,1,2) - which means according to that you should also 00:04:365 (3) -
musically it would make much more sense to nc this intro like this for example http://i.imgur.com/N1Hlakw.jpg
00:15:324 (6,1,2) - this its how it will be played, doesnt really seem nice for me http://i.imgur.com/8LRuNNF.png
Just move stuff a bit and curve 6 to get a much nicer angle http://i.imgur.com/MlDOSru.png and now dont tell me "but now the spacing to 1 is lower" with the way the previous slider is played by 90% of the playerbase it doesn't make a real difference
00:17:898 (2,4) - why are they spaced way differently, or even more important, why are they spaced at all? It is already a bit much having them clickable imo since they are basically continuations of 1/3, at least stack them under those to lower the impact of having them clickable
00:20:227 (4) - skipped 1/4 here hurts, make it a repeating 1/4 slider instead
00:30:644 (3,4) - the musical pattern from 1-2-1-2-1-2 continues and so should yours
also using some kicksliders for those taps that have 1/4 after them here would feel really nice. doesnt impact playbility and makes the drum 1/4 not feel so ignored
I see you like doing those overlaps 00:33:383 (2,3,4,5,6) - quite often in your map
nothing inherently wrong with them, I like how most of them play and use them myself too
!but
you should really have a consistent spacing for those (it shouldnt even take 10 minutes to make it sth. like ctzrl-g some notes - set ~0.3ds - ds them - ctrlg back and it will look much more polished, currently it looks all over the place
Before: http://i.imgur.com/p26SzJh.jpg
After: http://i.imgur.com/R2QSvhg (if the distance of sth like 5-6 is too low then move 5 - the note not used in the overlap)
and your distance for those varies greatly the whole time. a .1 change in ds on those spots doesnt really impact playability but it looks much nicer and not just like you threw some jumps there that happened to overlap
here for example it is extremely noticeable: 00:36:945 (2,3,4,1,2,3,1,2,1,2,3) - or 00:49:822 (2,3,4,5,6,7,1,2,3) -
00:38:589 (1,2,3,4) - you seem to map the vocals here, fine. But why is this not the biggest jump 00:38:863 (2,3) -, actually 00:38:589 (1,3,1) - should have the highest ds according to the vocals if you listen to them and how the syllables/tone and all goes
00:40:096 (2) - either stack on 3 or delete 3 and make 1/1 slider, since you are still mapping the vocals it seems that would make much more sense
00:40:507 (4) - can be spaced higher in relation cause new syllable/word thing and strong drum beat
00:44:890 - really strong vocal and instrumental, yet not clickable????????
00:47:630 (3,3) - such impactful drum hits, feels wrong to me to have them stacked, some trangular pattern would fit the music better imo. you could keep the current one for the piano and all, but adding small jumps on the 3s that go towards the next 1 would fit even better with the instruments and since they go back towards the next note they dont make it that much harder, example I did in 5 seconds: http://i.imgur.com/JTbe3S8.jpg
00:49:000 (3,4) - they would feel so much better fitting for the viiolions (or whatever the instrument is) if you used higher sv since it sounds really fast and high pitched. if you do that move the nc from 00:48:589 (1) - to 00:48:931 (2) - since that will look nicer as you would have to nc before the changed sv sliders anyways
00:50:644 (1) - if you put vocal // 3/4 sliders like this that end on empty blue ticks, at least make the ending less audible (20% or 10% volume) it feels so wrong cause they create a weird artificial rhythm and feel overmapped if you dont
01:12:287 (6) - sudden wide angles like this play really shitty and it is a really strong drum beat again that should be spaced further anyways maybe sth like
http://i.imgur.com/oIxSTaQ.jpg or http://i.imgur.com/7ufjjct.jpg
01:18:315 (3,6,2,5) - the difference in how those are arranged on each other feels extremely strange
well, most of the stuff I pointed continues throughtout the map so you should take a good look :v
at least fix some spacing/angles and the overlap aesthetics, then it could become a decent (or maybe better) map since the "core" looks okay
elvis
should probably space those 1/1 "stacks" the same 00:12:721 (5,1) - 00:13:680 (2,3) - to greatly aid readability, considering you do it like the second one in later parts of the map like 00:18:720 (4,1) - changing 00:12:721 (5,1) to be the same would be the best option
also using the same pattern (stacked on the end of following 1/2 slider) for those 3/2 gaps would be really nice imo 00:21:734 (1,1) - 00:12:995 (1,1) -
the 1/2 slider "spam" is pretty interesting and seems mostly fine, but the ones that end on stuff like strong guitar hits really throw me off 00:22:972 (4) - for example 00:24:068 (4) - etc maybe at least use stacked 1/2 or /2 with low spacing? keeps it clear that you dont mainly focus on guitar while making it nicer to play
00:39:685 (1,2) - have you tried using different sv for those (with 2 being faster)? it should go really nice with the vocals
00:42:287 (1,2,3,4,5) - lol seems like you really want people to misread those as 1/3 :v
01:15:027 (2,3,4,5,6,7) - actually think spammin nc would make this look nicer http://i.imgur.com/nuuK8gV.jpg
diff looks fine
should probably space those 1/1 "stacks" the same 00:12:721 (5,1) - 00:13:680 (2,3) - to greatly aid readability, considering you do it like the second one in later parts of the map like 00:18:720 (4,1) - changing 00:12:721 (5,1) to be the same would be the best option
also using the same pattern (stacked on the end of following 1/2 slider) for those 3/2 gaps would be really nice imo 00:21:734 (1,1) - 00:12:995 (1,1) -
the 1/2 slider "spam" is pretty interesting and seems mostly fine, but the ones that end on stuff like strong guitar hits really throw me off 00:22:972 (4) - for example 00:24:068 (4) - etc maybe at least use stacked 1/2 or /2 with low spacing? keeps it clear that you dont mainly focus on guitar while making it nicer to play
00:39:685 (1,2) - have you tried using different sv for those (with 2 being faster)? it should go really nice with the vocals
00:42:287 (1,2,3,4,5) - lol seems like you really want people to misread those as 1/3 :v
01:15:027 (2,3,4,5,6,7) - actually think spammin nc would make this look nicer http://i.imgur.com/nuuK8gV.jpg
diff looks fine
gl with that set