1. 00:59:978 (1,2) - This transition isn't good because players will want to cut corners on the sliders instead of playing it through unlike all the other sliders. With patterns like this you want players to play through the whole slider and a bit more to get that emphasis going.
2. 01:06:645 (1,2,3,4,5) - Same can apply to the stuff here, where you kind of want to break the directional flow of the slider inorder to have a better time playing the next slider. Stuff like : 01:00:395 (2,3,4) - play really well though, because players can go through the entire motion of the slider without experiencing a flowbreak onto the next slider's path. This really draws out the emphasis you get from the slider-motions, Try and reflect this kind of motion if you can. Stuff like: 00:56:645 (1,2,3,4,5) - Is also really nice for the same reasons .
3. 01:30:186 (2) - I wish you could Ctrl+G this instead cuz it would flow a lot better coming out of slider 1. But you'd have to do some pattern changes (i think its worth it).

1. 00:08:727 (2,3,4) - I would just keep the spacing the same. There are too few circles here for that decelerating stream thing to make sense here. It just looks out of place rather than a design element unless you have like 4-5+ circles imo.
2. 00:27:895 (1,1,1,1) - Im actually surprised you didnt do anything over the top here lol.
3. 00:33:520 (1,2) - While there are two beats here, the one on 00:33:624 (2) - is really feint in comparison. I think this pattern is better two two sets of beat pairings, rather than 3. Try making this a slider instead.
4. 00:35:256 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - I really recommend making these all NC's because it gets rid of the follow points in between circles and it forces players to be more aware of their rhythm. (I would apply this to other diffs that are Insane+ too)
5. 00:52:686 (1,2,3) - Fix the spacing here?
6. 01:29:978 (6,7) - This sounds more 1/3 to me... What do you think? ;o.

1. 00:08:311 (1,2) - This is fine but like
   
   You could try angling it a bit both for more readability and cuz its pretty cool imo xD

   
2. 00:12:895 (1,2) - No jump here? Good place for emphasis.
3. 01:44:978 (1) - This slider doesn't look like it's snapped properly. Actually a lot of the sliders in this section are snapped to 1/12 and 1/16's... check your snapping with Extra.

1. 01:16:228 (5) - Can we not do 2x repeat sliders please? :C Just do two sliders instead and remove both repeats.

1. 01:09:978 (1,1) - This isn't enough recovery time for a spinner because you've mapped this difficulty using 1/1 rhythm on 140 bpm.
   Also, thats a really large break :C.

Monstrata wrote:

[Comfort]

1. 00:59:978 (1,2) - This transition isn't good because players will want to cut corners on the sliders instead of playing it through unlike all the other sliders. With patterns like this you want players to play through the whole slider and a bit more to get that emphasis going. The transitions for these are fine due to the extremely large sliderball area we have for our cursor to be in. They're all very close together and there is plenty of leeway in every direction for players to have their cursor between these notes.
2. 01:06:645 (1,2,3,4,5) - Same can apply to the stuff here, where you kind of want to break the directional flow of the slider inorder to have a better time playing the next slider. Stuff like : 01:00:395 (2,3,4) - play really well though, because players can go through the entire motion of the slider without experiencing a flowbreak onto the next slider's path. This really draws out the emphasis you get from the slider-motions, Try and reflect this kind of motion if you can. Stuff like: 00:56:645 (1,2,3,4,5) - Is also really nice for the same reasons . I had already re-done this pattern and I think i can take a bit of liberty on the "bounce" direction here since it's the fourth and final iteration of the same pattern they've been doing.
3. 01:30:186 (2) - I wish you could Ctrl+G this instead cuz it would flow a lot better coming out of slider 1. But you'd have to do some pattern changes (i think its worth it). Hnnnghhh, true, but i like how the slider curves INTO 4 as well. idk what to do exactly

[Extra]

1. 00:08:727 (2,3,4) - I would just keep the spacing the same. There are too few circles here for that decelerating stream thing to make sense here. It just looks out of place rather than a design element unless you have like 4-5+ circles imo. UHHH THIS WAS ACTUALLY A STACKING ERROR DON'T TELL ANYONE
2. 00:27:895 (1,1,1,1) - Im actually surprised you didnt do anything over the top here lol. I can totally make them 1/8 sliders if you like babe
3. 00:33:520 (1,2) - While there are two beats here, the one on 00:33:624 (2) - is really feint in comparison. I think this pattern is better two two sets of beat pairings, rather than 3. Try making this a slider instead. Changed the first pair into a slider. Fits gud.
4. 00:35:256 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - I really recommend making these all NC's because it gets rid of the follow points in between circles and it forces players to be more aware of their rhythm. (I would apply this to other diffs that are Insane+ too) I'm torn with these because the follow points let it be actually readable in a "psuedo-random" pattern which the music is kind of doing, but at the same time they're actually quite the same time apart from eachother. I'll new combo them.
5. 00:52:686 (1,2,3) - Fix the spacing here? How in the f-----
6. 01:29:978 (6,7) - This sounds more 1/3 to me... What do you think? ;o Discussed on irc, tl;dr: the vocals are pretty much impossible to map directly as they occur because it uses a weird combination of 1/8 and 1/6, so diffs that map them just map "over" the voice.

[Ongaku]

1. 00:08:311 (1,2) - This is fine but like
   
   You could try angling it a bit both for more readability and cuz its pretty cool imo xD

   
2. 00:12:895 (1,2) - No jump here? Good place for emphasis.
3. 01:44:978 (1) - This slider doesn't look like it's snapped properly. Actually a lot of the sliders in this section are snapped to 1/12 and 1/16's... check your snapping with Extra.
4. All done.

[Collab Hard]

1. 01:16:228 (5) - Can we not do 2x repeat sliders please? :C Just do two sliders instead and remove both repeats. Ahahaha, yeah uhh done

K2Shape wrote:

One good map with a Irony inside :
The hardest difficulty is started as 'Comfort' when it isn't comforting to play that insane difficulty at all XD.

Garven wrote:

Extra:
01:14:353 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - Why? Doesn't fit the overall map flow at all and seems like just a high point of stress for a fairly flowing musical thought which is repeated for the entire song.

Kynan wrote:

Garven wrote:

Extra:
01:14:353 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - Why? Doesn't fit the overall map flow at all and seems like just a high point of stress for a fairly flowing musical thought which is repeated for the entire song.

How does it not fit ? It's the most enjoable part of the map IMO D:

Garven wrote:

What is it representing in the song compared to the rest of the map that calls for such a drastic departure from the established flow?

Len wrote:

nice map

Gero wrote:

Also 01:14:353 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - How about adding NCs here for a better readability? as you did on Extra otherwise trying to do something different instead.

Garven wrote:

Extra:
01:14:353 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - Why? Doesn't fit the overall map flow at all and seems like just a high point of stress for a fairly flowing musical thought which is repeated for the entire song.

Timorisu wrote:

And you complain about AXION being overmapped? lol.

Natsu wrote:

This really need a diff between Extra and Comfort, you can argue about rhythm being similar, but the jump in skill range its really huge, as I said before in my mod.. Even if you close thinking its imposible its fairly easy to make a diff between them and improve the spread. Even if just memes about the Ultra thing this set feels like that, Take in mind im not talking about the numbers at the star ranting, but about both diffs (Not only my opinion, you know I asked some people for this as well).

Shiirn wrote:

but this kind of "crazy mapping" is something most self-respecting mappers stopped doing early on as it is a newbie fantasy.

Silynn wrote:

I like this map, but I don't Comfort is ready for ranking in its current state. There's a lot of things that don't flow well and need to be polished. Lots of the placements look random and could be cleaned up quite a bit, and there's also many places in the map where you lose track of the melody and start placing objects on weird beats. I don't know if that is intentional, but if it is I feel that it detracts from the map.

Here's a few examples (I don't want to do a full mod right now, but if you want me to go over the map in more detail with you, let me know in-game)

00:27:686 (1,2,3,4) - I don't know if it's just me, but this is very awkward to play, especially when 2keying. I would make the spacing in this pattern simpler, or change the rhythm all together I've never seen this considered awkward to play. It's basically juast an 8-note 144 stream followed by alternating brief holds. If anything, this pattern is way easier to alternate than it is for singletappers since the later end of it basically forces alternation.

00:31:332 (6,7) - the 6 should be 1/2 and the 7 1/1 to follow the melody better. The current rhythm is awkward for the player to follow and detracts from the structure of the map These two notes are following the bass as it fades in and out. The rhythm is fine. The structure is perfectly fine.

00:32:374 (3,4) - the 3 should be a slider here as well. I know you're following beats that are technically in the music, but if you're going to map mostly to the melody - keep it consistent. It gives the player a better feel of the music and makes things less awkward. I either recommend making the 3 a 1/2 slider and the 4 a note, or just ditching 4 completely and making 3 a 1/1 slider I feel like you don't know what you're trying to say here. This entire section is following the bass with a secondary focus on the instruments below it. This is what most maps do...

00:33:311 (3) - this doesn't really make much sense musically. the long note starts on the 2 before it, so either make that a 1/1 slider or follow a different rhythm like this:
http://puu.sh/n7TIg.png

Okay, so many things are wrong about that particular note of yours. 00:33:415 - this is a tiny ass wub right here, but you want me to have a click on it? When the current rhythm is quite adeptly following the really weird bass patterning the music is? I dunno, man. I really want to be objective and rational with this here and not sound like a hater but none of this is actually making any sense to me.

anyways just a few things to point out that the map definitely isn't ready. I think it needs a lot more work on it. Message me in-game if you want more opinions.

Mazziv wrote:

@shiirn mind explaining me a few things? (extra diff)
00:16:436 (2,3) - i literally vomit everytime when i see this,why dont you just simply stack? Blame the people that cry "hard to read" when it's stacked. Normally I stack them.
00:36:228 (1) - i dont even know what to say bout this slider. it just hurts in my eyes. you should use a simple curved slider not this lmao Weird noise, weird slider. It's not like it's all that ugly, it just has a weird bend. What's your problem?

Mazziv wrote:

@shiirn mind explaining me a few things? (extra diff)
00:16:436 (2,3) - i literally vomit everytime when i see this,why dont you just simply stack? Blame the people that cry "hard to read" when it's stacked. Normally I stack them. mind showing me those people saying its hard to read? as now it just looks horrible imo



00:36:228 (1) - i dont even know what to say bout this slider. it just hurts in my eyes. you should use a simple curved slider not this lmao Weird noise, weird slider. It's not like it's all that ugly, it just has a weird bend. What's your problem?

RikiH_ wrote:

Guys, don't even try to give suggestions, he just rejects everything thinking he's the best. This map is really low-quality, as I already addressed in my previous mod

Kynan wrote:

WTF is up with you ? Do you think you're any better with you linear stream maps ? It's not because you can't play the map that it's bad, and if you want a extra diff because you think the spread isn't good (when it is), then you're free to make a GD with repetitive jumps for 6.xx stars I guess ?

MillhioreF wrote:

Agreeing with the general idea of what Silynn said. You've chosen to make a map that has very little structure and instead relies on flow and powerful spacing to carry it, which is a valid design decision given the song choice - but as a result, your flow has to be on point in order to make this a good map, and in that regard it isn't quite ready yet.

A couple more examples in Comfort of things that can be improved, although far from an extensive list:

00:27:686 (1,2,3,4) - While this pattern itself holds up fine, the way these notes squish into (1) of the next combo is really awkward due to the lowered spacing and tight angle. It feels like the next (1) would be better above (4). The brief hold sliders are in a triangular pattern. I can simply reverse 2 and 3 so that they bounce outwards instead of inwards, but that'd mean increasing the spacing so that we don't have OH MY GOD OVERLAPS CALL 911 etc etc

01:05:915 (7,8,9,1,2,3) - This whole cluster of notes is oddly powerful for how relatively calm the music is, and smashing your cursor down to (1) feels a bit strange due to the angle. This is following the beat of the music, and 8,9,1 are very powerful snare hits that are much more prominent than any one of the other bass-spam sections.

01:19:561 (6) - This should be flipped vertically, nobody is gonna move their cursor -upwards- on this slider. This is fairly semantics-level modding. It's meant to imply a curve over to (7) but at these speeds i guess people just click it and rush over to the next note and that MAY cause them to 100 this. Sure, I'll move it, just hope people don't whine that it increases the spacing.

01:30:915 (5,6,7) - Having (6) and (7) go the same direction on these weird back and forth hops is just plain awkward, especially considering the cursor movement to get to the next note. I agree that this is rotated the wrong way, but short of redoing the entire section just ctrl+ging it would lead to a much larger jump than i wanted. I'll just ctrl+G it and see how it goes.

This doesn't go on to list the extensive amount of times you intentionally wreck the smooth flow of the map by requiring hairpin cursor turns or having a slider start where flow dictates it should end. I personally don't like this at all, but I don't think I'm qualified to determine how well it plays in practice. The hairpin turns are all intended and play quite well with the music. I do agree, however, that if there are any instances in which the map is unfair by telling the player to do one thing and then punishing them for it (for example, the sliders that will 100 you if you try to hit the note after them in a direct line) then those should FOR SURE be fixed but I need good mods for those because if I just fix them myself nobody ever notices they were changed and then i get people claiming i need more mods for other inane reasons

If possible, you should try and add some more structured patterns to the map as well, since I'll be honest, it looks butt ugly in most places. While play is obviously the most important thing in a beatmap, and this map accomplishes that decently, you should at least try to add some sense into your patterns where you can instead of the "fling you cursor out and place a circle where it naturally feels like it should go" style of mapping that some mappers tend to use. I for one find the ridiculously stringent rules placed on aesthetics for maps is hurting their creativity. Now before people start quoting me back at me, hear me out. This map is very structured, but it also has many breaks in the structure purely to move into a different set of rules. For example, some of the bass-heavy points use the "blanket spam" structure that gave Comfort its name, and the parts of the map, especially the kiai, that are much more note-heavy and less inclined to the bass use a back-and-forth setup and movement yes, reminiscent of Tengaku. When you put all of these together without actually taking a moment to think about what the mapper is doing, it can look like a messy hodge-podge of "random" structure. Which is just silly. I was originally a mapper when the entire concept of "transitions" either between patterns, structure, or beat patterns was really starting to take hold in the meta and it will likely stick with me forever. If that makes my maps "look" ugly, then so be it.

Some people think this map is hopeless. I'm inclined to disagree, but saying it's ready for ranking in its current state is an overstatement. Please get a few more mods and top player opinions, and I highly suggest toning down the spacing during pretty much the entire kiai as well. Maybe if people actually would mod it and i've gotten many top player opinions and implemented MANY MANY MANY of the suggestions you damn know me milly you know I'm basically a lightning rod for community input so don't tell me these canned phrases.

(Also I'm pretty sure the current spread isn't rankable yet. The new rules have been repealed for now, and whether it SHOULD be rankable is its own discussion.) (i'll argue against making a 6* diff until the point where this map is nuked if need be)

MillhioreF wrote:

"fling you cursor out and place a circle where it naturally feels like it should go" style of mapping that some mappers tend to use.

Shiirn wrote:

I mean, it's unfortunate for you Mazziv, but no matter how loud you cry or how bitchy you get, it's not going to make your or RikiH's mods any more relevant or acceptable for me. You're just embarrassing yourself.

Smoothie World wrote:

Hey, gonna mod this tomorrow night when I'm home since you modded my map. : )

Shiirn wrote:

I mean, it's unfortunate for you Mazziv, but no matter how loud you cry or how bitchy you get, it's not going to make your or RikiH's mods any more relevant or acceptable for me. You're just embarrassing yourself.

fieryrage wrote:

Jesus fucking christ, this turned into a shitshow. Alright. Take 2. Not touching the easy to insane diffs because those seem to be alright for now.

ok

extra
aka the "this should be 6 stars how the fuck is this 5.42" difficulty

00:02:061 (2,3,4,5) - I get that you try to make the mapping style unique and all but these patterns just look ugly and make me sad, might be better off doing a linear style pattern just so there's less cluster and confusion or something (because I mean you did basically what I just suggested here 00:03:728 (2,3,4,5) - so uhh??)2 was actually missnapped somehow, moved back to its proper place, also, fuck linear, and there is a bass hit on the first pattern that lets it work fine, the second pattern is different because the music is different
00:04:249 (6) - NC this to maintain consistency with 00:10:915 (1) Done
00:05:395 (1) - remove NC, or NC 00:02:061 (2) - and any other intro patterns like this to maintain consistency Added a new combo by re-organizing the pattern so i could get a bass click in there
00:09:665 (7) - NC might be better here to showcase the jump Done
00:12:895 (1,2,3,4) - I really don't like how tight the jump is between 00:12:895 (1,2,3) - it makes the entire pattern play really badly. Maybe increase the spacing between 1 and 2? Changed so that the 4 notes go over the next 7 stream's structure. inb4 people whine its not a square
00:25:186 (1) - yo why is this a NC as well as 00:25:395 (1) - ?? Emphasis on the single instrument used there. it's an aesthetics thing.
00:26:020 (1) - ^ I'm seriously confused by this ^
00:27:895 (1,1,1,1) - honestly this would be a lot better playability-wise as a 1/6 stream or repeat slider like in Comfort, because while this follows the rhythm technically it just aaaa it doesn't feel right with the emphasis on the synth; also I don't really think NC spam is needed here The nc was for pretty aesthetics to emphasize the 1/8 roll but i mean the ranking criteria has had 5 years to pin down a rule of "in cases where a 1/6 or 1/8 stream would be too difficult, you can ignore the exact timing to use a 1/4 or 1/6 stream" and hasn't so i dont know exactly what to do here.
00:34:145 (1,1,2,1) - NC's here are a bit fucky imo, could be better by removing NC at 00:34:457 (1) - and placing it 00:34:561 (2) - and removing the NC on the slider after redid the ncs
00:35:533 (1,1,1,1,1) - still don't think NC spam works here i dont either but i mean i take suggestions too easily sometimes. ncs removed and will leave it removed.
00:38:311 (6) - NC for downbeat? Ok
00:39:770 (3) - this might be better as a single note, and then putting the spinner on the blue tick I like the bass = slider general rule. it doesn't ruin the spinner either.
00:44:353 (3,1) - jump is a bit overkill for this difficulty imo, put 1 closer to the sliderend of 3 like this or something
00:46:645 (1,1) - basically same thing here although I'm not really sure that's an easy fix with how you designed the rest of the things following it
00:48:311 (5) - NC for downbeat? Ok
00:55:915 (1) - maybe extend this slider to the blue tick? I think it flows better that way Ok
01:04:978 (1) - I don't really get why you put a spinner here instead of just using the same rhythm you've used for the past two things like thisOk
01:09:561 (1) - this is actually really good sliderart tbh Ok
01:24:040 (2,3,1) - this pattern would flow a lot better by removing 3 and just having 2 be a 1/8 repeat slider imo Ok
01:25:186 (1) - remove NC since there's a spinner directly after (is this against the ranking criteria idfk) Ok
01:29:978 (6) - NC for downbeat? Ok
01:32:686 (4) - NC since this is basically an entirely new pattern separate from the previous one Ok
01:39:874 (1) - remove NC for the spinner again Ok
01:42:061 (2,3,4,5) - same thing that I said for 00:02:061 (2,3,4,5) - applies here too STAAAACKING
01:45:394 (2,3,4,5) - ^STAAAACKING
01:50:082 (3) - NC this since it's a new pattern Ok
01:52:895 (1,2,3,4) - again, I think this jump could be a bit more spaced in terms of the spacing between 1 and 2 Ok

comfort

00:20:395 (1,2,3,4) - this pattern plays really awkwardly in comparison to everything else, adding a curve between 2 and 3 helps a bit
01:09:978 (1) - remove NC cuz the spinner again Ok
01:14:561 (3,5) - NC these two? you did it in the extra difficulty and I think it'd work well here for readability Ok
01:19:770 (7) - why does the kiai end here and then start again??? there's no difference in beats fountains br000000
01:21:020 (2,4,6) - NC these and remove NC on 01:20:915 (1) - for the same reason as 01:14:561 (3,5) Ok
01:21:645 (1,2,3) - previous pattern like this didn't have 1/8 after it, so why does this one have it?
01:39:874 (1) - remove NC cuz spinner I'm starting to question my thought process behind removing these tbh
01:42:061 (2,3,4,5) - holy spacing this is a calm part man clam down Ok

Don't really have much to say on the Comfort difficulty, I personally enjoy the patterns but there's at least some things in there.

Anxient wrote:

just gonna drop my two cents
this guy looks like axarious

box

comfortable not really

things i hope you applied
00:11:228 (2,1) - putting this downwards http://puu.sh/n86KM/77af9d0dc1.jpg, coz its a flowbreak worthy part and has similar rhythm as 00:10:915 (1,2) -

the actual check
00:13:936 (1,2,1,2,1,2,3) - #i_shouldnt_have_shown_xxr_routing
00:15:290 (2) - move this further away from 3 because 3 has a strong beat, so its better to have 2 stick to regular distance and have 3 be extended for emphasis. http://puu.sh/n86UW/c3964ccd29.jpg
00:15:707 (5,6) - these notes are nearly touching lol which are an not-ok in my book. to fix this i moved 00:15:499 (4,5) - to 373:367. also grants extra emphasis for 00:15:811 (6) - http://puu.sh/n875y/ddf0baceab.jpg
00:16:749 (4,1) - stack lol
00:17:270 (2,1) - maybe fix the blanket on sliderend? http://puu.sh/n878Q/fddeb9667c.jpg
00:20:395 (1,2,3,4) - maybe have these follow the same DS you used for 00:19:353 (1,2) - coz the part isnt very emphasized. like the beats are soft. heck, 00:19:353 (1,2) - this part is more emphasized actually lol. have a really bad fix http://puu.sh/n87mu/2e0d4444c2.jpg
00:20:811 (1,2,3) - honestly i cant think of any reason as to why you made the part... like this lol there are no beats to represent those 5/8 sliders. i choose to attack this part coz this a major part (and not minor either lol like those sliderends being hitcircles and shortening sliders). using this rhythm wouldve done just fine http://puu.sh/n87Gy/8a6d140228.jpg. you can do your fancy curve sliders using some SV altering but pls change this part. (incase you dont wanna redo these sliders, using SV 1.5x would do just fine (might be disorienting but hey this map is confusing as it is already LOLOLOL)
00:22:686 (1) - ctrl g this lol i dont see a reason as to why you used a flow break. flow is extremely important in double bpm maps (but im sure you knew that)
00:22:686 (1,2) - also fix sliderblanket http://puu.sh/n87U0/41fd3a1ff9.jpg
00:23:311 (3,4,1) - i was wondering what was wrong with this part lol. use the same DS. i dont see why its different (lower even), especially when it has more sounds in it
00:24:665 (2) - if i were to put a flow break in this part i wouldve done it in 00:24:561 (1) - instead of 00:24:665 (2) - lol but since you did neither, ill just go ahead and tell you to make this part super flowy http://puu.sh/n888j/0dbde249f9.jpg
00:26:020 (1) - ctrl g this for emphasis (well it players better when i was simulating it) 00:26:228 (1) - also gives this the extra kick :l
00:27:061 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - i dont understand all the hate in this part lol
00:28:832 (4,5,6) - 5 is in the wrong spot lol. do this instead http://puu.sh/n892L/d476e3034b.jpg
00:31:645 (7) - ctrl g coz it makes the other parts more fun to play imo 00:31:853 (1) -
00:31:645 (7) - also NC ths i dont know why this is continue combo
00:31:853 (1,1) - same goes for here. why NC :l http://puu.sh/n88AX/4931ca3994.jpg
00:32:686 (1,2,3,4) - if anything i would have this stream go down lol because theres nothing in the song that suggests a upward stream (and the stream is nearly vertical so this would be appropriate with some really strong increasing pitch)
00:40:186 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - i dont understand why people hate this part too lol i mean it creats pretty good buildup :l
00:47:374 (3) - i dont think its a good idea to use a sliderend to emphasize a strong beat.
00:57:061 (2,3,4,5) - id prefer if you ctrl g'd (as in reverse the position of slider start coz i dont understand why you put the flowbreak here other than the finishes. if you wanna keep this, okay but this looks really painful to play.
00:59:978 (1,2) - lemao overlap
01:03:311 (1,2,3,4,5) - this part is fine tho. its cool.
01:33:103 (5) - ctrl g this lol why flowbreak

pls no unfriend

Shiirn wrote:

anyone who thinks i sacrifice structure for anything clearly hasn't actually looked at how the patterns tie to eachother and how the notes are connected

Yauxo wrote:

(I dont care if you try to defend your map, just dont act like it's perfect)

Anxient wrote:

box

comfortable not really

things i hope you applied
00:11:228 (2,1) - putting this downwards http://puu.sh/n86KM/77af9d0dc1.jpg, coz its a flowbreak worthy part and has similar rhythm as 00:10:915 (1,2) -

the actual check
00:13:936 (1,2,1,2,1,2,3) - #i_shouldnt_have_shown_xxr_routing
00:15:290 (2) - move this further away from 3 because 3 has a strong beat, so its better to have 2 stick to regular distance and have 3 be extended for emphasis. http://puu.sh/n86UW/c3964ccd29.jpg Sure, why not. If i get people bitching "but muh spacing it should be equal" they can kiss my ass
00:15:707 (5,6) - these notes are nearly touching lol which are an not-ok in my book. to fix this i moved 00:15:499 (4,5) - to 373:367. also grants extra emphasis for 00:15:811 (6) - http://puu.sh/n875y/ddf0baceab.jpg the reason they're close to begin with was because someone was whining "muh equal spacing" but screw those guys. moved over a bit.
00:16:749 (4,1) - stack lol how the hell do you people find these 1-pixel stack issues
00:17:270 (2,1) - maybe fix the blanket on sliderend? http://puu.sh/n878Q/fddeb9667c.jpg i tried
00:20:395 (1,2,3,4) - maybe have these follow the same DS you used for 00:19:353 (1,2) - coz the part isnt very emphasized. like the beats are soft. heck, 00:19:353 (1,2) - this part is more emphasized actually lol. have a really bad fix http://puu.sh/n87mu/2e0d4444c2.jpg lowered the spacing a bit but honestly whatever
00:20:811 (1,2,3) - honestly i cant think of any reason as to why you made the part... like this lol there are no beats to represent those 5/8 sliders. i choose to attack this part coz this a major part (and not minor either lol like those sliderends being hitcircles and shortening sliders). using this rhythm wouldve done just fine http://puu.sh/n87Gy/8a6d140228.jpg. you can do your fancy curve sliders using some SV altering but pls change this part. (incase you dont wanna redo these sliders, using SV 1.5x would do just fine (might be disorienting but hey this map is confusing as it is already LOLOLOL) Not doing this. These three sliders heavily emphasize the wubs and encourage the player to hold the beat very hard, as well as alternate. This map tries very hard to be single-tap friendly while trying to encourage alternating in places like this, where I want to have buttons held down for longer than just short taps. At 25% you might feel like they're not entirely accurate but at any higher speed they fit very well! Also, they're 3/8 buddy :U
00:22:686 (1) - ctrl g this lol i dont see a reason as to why you used a flow break. flow is extremely important in double bpm maps (but im sure you knew that) Gameplay wise there is literally no difference and i wanted the swap in clockwise-counterclockwise to emphasize the wubs, but if people start throwing that scary 'flow' buzz word around i better line the fuck up right?
00:22:686 (1,2) - also fix sliderblanket http://puu.sh/n87U0/41fd3a1ff9.jpg did with zexous' help
00:23:311 (3,4,1) - i was wondering what was wrong with this part lol. use the same DS. i dont see why its different (lower even), especially when it has more sounds in it fiddled a bit
00:24:665 (2) - if i were to put a flow break in this part i wouldve done it in 00:24:561 (1) - instead of 00:24:665 (2) - lol but since you did neither, ill just go ahead and tell you to make this part super flowy http://puu.sh/n888j/0dbde249f9.jpg I mean except for the abuse of the word 'flow' i don't really see the point in this but i should pretend to actually care about this, but since it has no gameplay impact whatever let's do it
00:26:020 (1) - ctrl g this for emphasis (well it players better when i was simulating it) 00:26:228 (1) - also gives this the extra kick :l Nope. One of the stringent rules of this track is that 1/8 = very close, overlapping or almost overlapped spacing. Not going to break it exactly once.
00:27:061 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - i dont understand all the hate in this part lol Haters should just be glad I didn't actually map every individual beat in the music here.
00:28:832 (4,5,6) - 5 is in the wrong spot lol. do this instead http://puu.sh/n892L/d476e3034b.jpg I'll do it but i mean im sure some idiot is going to say 'muh flow' or 'muh spacing'. I think either way works fairly fine due to how the synth and bass work out.
00:31:645 (7) - ctrl g coz it makes the other parts more fun to play imo 00:31:853 (1) - Don't see the point. if it's reversed then we have 'anti-flow' because the cursor has to go even more distance. idk don't ask me to explain what flow is ur just a bad mapper blah blah etc.
00:31:645 (7) - also NC ths i dont know why this is continue combo
00:31:853 (1,1) - same goes for here. why NC :l http://puu.sh/n88AX/4931ca3994.jpg I have always new combod the 3/8 sliders that emphasize the intermittent interjections of interesting instruments.
00:32:686 (1,2,3,4) - if anything i would have this stream go down lol because theres nothing in the song that suggests a upward stream (and the stream is nearly vertical so this would be appropriate with some really strong increasing pitch) The direction really doesn't matter. It really, really doesn't unless it's clear you're using volume as a model for where you're aiming a section. These are four notes and they just happen to go upwards. It's not implying that the pitch or volume go up or down. Not every note or pattern needs to have a deep underlying meaning behind it.
00:40:186 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - i dont understand why people hate this part too lol i mean it creats pretty good buildup :l I've only ever seen people think it's either "pretty good" or "fucking amazing". I've only seen people whine about it once it got qualified. That's mapping for you.
00:47:374 (3) - i dont think its a good idea to use a sliderend to emphasize a strong beat. It's not emphasizing a strong beat. The strong beat just happens to be on the end because here I am mapping that high pitched unidentifiable instrument rather than purely the bass.
00:57:061 (2,3,4,5) - id prefer if you ctrl g'd (as in reverse the position of slider start coz i dont understand why you put the flowbreak here other than the finishes. if you wanna keep this, okay but this looks really painful to play. what? these bouncy bits play amazing, ive not seen a single person dislike it and that includes the haters, even the most staunch of haters said they liked these
00:59:978 (1,2) - lemao overlap palrevo oamel
01:03:311 (1,2,3,4,5) - this part is fine tho. its cool. this is literally the exact same as the other one except rotated 180 degrees
01:33:103 (5) - ctrl g this lol why flowbreak This is changing direction so that the impulse to leap to the next start doesn't lead to the player 100ing the slider. It's for gameplay. Sliderballs don't need to constantly go in the same general direction. That's not how flow works...

pls no unfriend

Shiirn wrote:

Yauxo wrote:

(I dont care if you try to defend your map, just dont act like it's perfect)

I never said it was perfect. I've applied many mods just today. Most people I've spoken to like the map a lot, just a vocal minority like to find any reason to dislike the map.

Most pro player input I have gotten is that it plays very well for the most part and any parts that feel directly unfair as opposed to challenging are being found and weeded out.

The raw aesthetic rule of " you need to make sure no notes overlap and the map has the exact same style the entire map" is not going to happen here. If you want it to happen here, you're looking for the wrong map. Having a stringent rule of "sliders need to point directly at the next note or it is ugly" is just as silly. If you want to say "its all just a god damn mess" then have fun. I won't accept "change it because it looks bad" as a mod.

Most of the input I've gotten since the disqualification has been "shit from the thread, value from in-game". The people that are speaking their mind in this thread without giving specific advice (or are telling me I mapped a section wrong because they'd do it differently and refuse to see any sort of alternative) are completely useless. The people who chat with me in-game and discuss actual pattern shape and flow are far more valuable. As such, I'm going to give them the attention they deserve.



I'm going to go over Comfort with a very fine toothed comb over the next day while seeking (and going over already posted) input from people whom I know aren't just making shit up because they vaguely find the map disagreeable. After that, I'm going to work back towards qualification. If it gets DQ'd again, so be it. I will not be fillibustered out of ranking something I know is not just rankable, but pretty good. And Comfort is pretty good. It's nowhere near perfect, but perfect is unobtainable as there will always be people who think it should be different.

CXu wrote:

Still, I don't think writing opinions is useless. Maybe you do, but eh.

1. 00:04:978 (4) - phrase starts here again so put NC here too, RNC at 00:05:395 (1) then
2. 00:05:707 (4) - you might nc this, too like you did at 00:02:374 (1)
3. 00:09:040 (5) and 00:09:561 (1) - different NC'ing again. although the first time the phrase is ending abruptly, i still recommend to keep them the same (just seems the most logical then to me)
4. 01:51:957 (2,3) - ^ different NC'ing in the last part too ;w;
5. 00:04:249 (1,2) - how it comes that so different from 00:10:915 (1,2) ?
6. 00:12:374 (5) - NC issue like above
   
7. 00:20:082 - shouldnt there be a wubbly slider here?
8. 00:19:353 (1) - and 00:32:686 (1,2,3,4) - sounds actually similiar (and this sound is on the same spot in the repetition) if you remove your hitsounds. so make it the same too? this is a structure issue in ther way that, as a player you wont notice that it's actually the same again (thus map feels more random)
9. 00:16:020 (1) - not as important but its a different style compared to 00:22:686 (1) - but why tho
10. 00:17:270 (2) - where are my 1/6? (compare to 00:23:936 (2,3,4,5) - at the repetition). on a second note NC'ing is different here again but the music making differences here too so yea
11. 00:33:311 (3) - 1/1 is really bad. the jumps and NC should start at the sliderend. anyway it is completely different mapped to 00:20:186 (6,1,2,3,4)
12. 00:48:311 (4) - slider is off the synth, at 00:47:374 (3) you acrificed the strong drum to get the slider togethere with the synth. you basically did it all the time before so its kinda suprising to get off the synth-line/track here. make it like at 00:51:853 (1) (altough thats not exactly the repetition but it has the same rhythm)
13. 00:55:186 (2) - ctrl+g would flow waaay better. also i think pursuing the previous pattern is out of place as the music changes here
14. 00:56:228 (4) - where are your 1/8 drum following sliders now huh^^ (see 01:26:020 (1,2) - mentioned in IRC). i still think you should remove hte 1/8 sliders at the second time tho^^
15. 00:55:968 - ^ same as above, add your 1/8 stream here then?
16. 00:59:561 (1,2) - ctrl+g, still think it would flow awesome
17. 01:01:436 (2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,6) - why not some scratch-mapping like at repetition at 01:08:311 (1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3)
18. 01:01:645 (3) - anyway this finish is on wrong spot it should be at 01:01:540 - i think this additional finish sounds awesome tho, so maybe instead add one at the repetition also missing out the finish at 01:02:999 -
19. 01:08:520 (2) - finish should be here like at ^
20. 01:14:249 (6,1) - dafuq o.o? this should be like at 01:20:915 (1,2)
21. 01:22:895 (1) - you didnt NC at 01:16:228 (4) tho
22. 01:28:207 (4) - here you sacrifice the strong drum to follow the vocals, 01:27:374 (5,6) - here you didnt do this exactly
23. 01:29:353 (1) - even tho the vocals are having a kind of a break here i think it is still more appropriate to make the NC at 01:29:561 (2) at the white tick/beginning of vocals (if even a NC is needed at all). i actually would make 2xcircle+2xslider at 01:29:353 (1,2,3,4) - (instead of the current 2xslider+2xcircle rhythm)
24. 01:35:915 (1,2,3,4) - please make NC'ing and maybe similiar rhythm too (2xcircle+slider+circle) like at ^. this is again almost a repetition.
25. 01:30:811 (4,5,6,7) - i know what youre are going for here but, this looks very similiar mapped when you followed the vocals, so when youre playing you also expect that. use a more different looking pattern here pls :s
26. 01:48:832 (3) - isnt this slider like completely wring here? sounds like this to me: http://puu.sh/n90ca/202f3329c4.jpg ((5,6) are on 1/12 snap if you wanna map them)
27. 01:49:353 (7) - NC here? theme is coming back again after that jazz like piano shout-in. you also did sth similiar at 01:50:915 (1)

1. 00:03:728 (2,3,4,5) low spaced - 00:10:395 (3,4,5,6) high spaced. logic
2. 00:04:249 (6,7) - 00:10:915 (1,2) - why the different rhythms
3. 00:28:311 - where did all my wubbly sliders go in the repetition of this part 00:14:978 - ?
4. 00:32:686 (1,2,3,4) - 00:19:145 (5,1,2,3) - make them the same? more memorisable then, too not mentioning its actually completely the same thing again
5. 01:07:999 (1,1,2,3) - 01:01:332 (1,1,2,3,4) - map them in kinda the same way? at least fix that slider 01:01:332 (1)

1. 00:02:374 (1) - remove NC. compare to 00:08:311 (1,2,3)
2. 00:08:728 (2) - for same reason as above make this also a repeat slider or the other an antijump-non-repeat-slider
3. 00:48:520 - 00:49:145 - 00:49:457 - "The Disappearance of whistle-chan". it really hurts, i wold rather remove the drum-hitsounds for that. the normal-whsitles are exclusively for the special synth of this part (while the drum HS are basiclal everywhere) so at least keep it consistent.
4. 00:54:874 - 00:55:395 - 00:55:603 - same as ^, you could actually put them on the sliderend, sliderbody, sliderbody so why not add them if you can?

phaZ wrote:

[ongakus insane]

1. 00:02:374 (1) - remove NC. compare to 00:08:311 (1,2,3) applied
2. 00:08:728 (2) - for same reason as above make this also a repeat slider or the other an antijump-non-repeat-slider Kind of confused here...
3. 00:48:520 - 00:49:145 - 00:49:457 - "The Disappearance of whistle-chan". it really hurts, i wold rather remove the drum-hitsounds for that. the normal-whsitles are exclusively for the special synth of this part (while the drum HS are basiclal everywhere) so at least keep it consistent. remade patterns and applied hitsounds for consistency
4. 00:54:874 - 00:55:395 - 00:55:603 - same as ^, you could actually put them on the sliderend, sliderbody, sliderbody so why not add them if you can? same here

very consistent

1. 00:03:520 (1) - I feel like this NC doesn't really belong here at all. Yes, you are showing that the song has changed instrument/intensity, but this is such a small change/sound that it just doesn't matter at all. I'd either take the NC off from this or 00:03:728 (1) - as there is no need to have both here. If you choose to let these, then you might want to add a NC to places like 00:04:561 (2) - since the intensity change here is much more interesting to emphasize with a NC and you didn't do it.
   
2. 00:05:915 (5,2) - Nazi - these aren't perfectly stacked
   
3. 00:08:311 (1,5) - ^
   
4. 00:09:561 (1,2) - ^, but this isn't really my issue with this one. The fact that you have a counter-logical movement between the end of (6) and (1) is already a big issue usually, but then (2) just simply has a unnatural movement that plays extremely awkward and feels like just a gimmicky pattern made for the sake of it. The song doesn't really support "going back to where you wre before" so there's no need for something like this. If you really want to keep something like this in a way that I can support it, then you can go full tengaku and do this. Note that the screenshot also suggests a good new placement for (3) which does play kinda awkwardly, but still much better than what it is now.
   
5. 00:10:082 (1,2) - Badly stacked, and same issue as before, however this isn't as big of an issue because there is a break before. Still not something I fully support, but I believe you won't want to change this.
   
6. 00:11:645 (1) - This slider has a few issues. It's not perfectly blanketing (2)'s sliderend, also looks really ugly with the curve from the previous slider barely touching it, aaaand also it flows really badly, as it is forcing you to make an unnatural movement (going up following (2), then you have to instantly go right and up->left again to follow (1). If you don't mind about the blanketing, then the solution to fix the flow will be ctrl+G'ing (1) and (3) like this, which results in a much more natural movement and doesn't break your pattern in any way.
   
7. 00:13:936 (1,2,1,2,1,2,3) - As a tap player I don't really like these jumps and I feel like they aren't really nice to alternate as well due to their movement and distance, but I may be wrong here, so I won't really suggest you to change, just a small quick comment
   
8. 00:15:290 (2,3,4) - Yes, I get your point with the spacing difference you're using here. Yes, it does follow the song to a certain extent. But then here comes the biggest issue of it all: Does it *actually* play well and intuitive? A player might be easily able to sightread/play this spacing, but it still doesn't make up for the fact that it is not as enjoyable to play. The biggest problem here, however, is that the song does support jumps like these, but you still have to find a way to make them play better than they do right now. These sudden changes in spacing and flow are what makes the map 'choppy' to play for most people, it's not even about the blanketing or the crazy 288 jumps. I know that this was done on purpose and you may want to keep them since it is the essence of the map, but if you ever think about changing it, then, in this case, stacking (3,4) would make it better as you're not exactly going through a weird spacing change and is just playing a stacked note which is a much more interesting cursor movement. If you really want to keep this, though, then at least properly blanket (4) with (1)'s start.
   
9. 00:15:707 (5,6) - Unnatural movement, as explained before (this also looks a bit ugly for me but it may be just me). It doesn't really make the pattern much prettier, but turning the slider around like this may make it nicer to play.
   
10. 00:16:645 (3,2) - Nazi, these are not perfectly stacked. Don't forget to fix 00:17:999 (4) - if you care about this!
    
11. 00:17:999 (4) - I'd reeeeeally really rotate this slider slightly so you actually make a star movement when playing (right now, (4)'s length makes you have to go up instead of going straight to (5) which may be creative, but doesn't exactly play nicely). Rotating this by -30º using selection centre worked nicely for me.
    
12. 00:19:874 (4,5) - I already talked about these so it's your choice if you want to keep them. There's something about this one that makes it really confusing for me to sightread and I end up pressing (4) thinking it's a slider. This may be an issue you might look out for, since in a 7.5* map you really need to make these things more intuitive. It may be an issue to another DQ later.
    
13. 00:21:228 (3) - It may be just me, but the intensity jump between (2,3) is much bigger than (1,2), so you may want to emphasize this better. Something like this does the trick for me, but it may feel weird/ugly to you (and it also kills your pattern ;_;). Still, it's a better attempt to follow the song, in my view.
    
14. 00:22:895 (1,2) - I feel like the spacing between these two is way too low... This is almost the spacing you've been using for 1/8s, while you just had a few 2.40x 1/4 jumps. Intensity is pretty much the same so I don't see why use this as a spacing rest. If you think about changing this, doing this would be a nice way to fix it (and also the pattern looks prettier in my eyes).
    
15. 00:23:311 (3) - Nazi, but this isn't perfectly stacked with 00:22:478 (4) - .
    
16. 00:23:936 (2,3,4,5) - Nazi as well, spacing between (4,5) is different than (2,3,4).
    
17. 00:27:686 (1,2,3,4) - Something about this pattern just makes me not like it. Maybe it is the fact that (1) is almost touching (6), the fact that the sliders are way too curved or (3,4)'s repeats just being way too unintuitive, like you don't know when to start holding each slider and when to stop (aside from looking at the approach circles, but let's be honest, who does this nowadays, especially in a 7 star map). I don't.. really have a suggestion for this, sorry I just don't want to break your mapping so I'll leave it up to you if you want to do something about this/how you want to do it.
    
18. 00:28:832 (4,5,6) - Same issue as 00:15:290 (2,3,4) - so I won't really blabber about it again, just if you want to fix this, placing (5) at 496;152 works fine and creates a nice kind-of-triangle between (2,3,5).
    
19. 00:30:811 (3,6) - Pretty weird blanketing here, (3)'s start is much farther away from the smaller slider than the ending is, but there's a bigger issue here:
    
20. 00:31:332 (6) - You're missing a clickable sound at 00:31:436 - . I won't go around explaining the basics of how beats have to be clickable & etc so I'll spare you the details and send you up a suggestion on how it could be made using the mapping logic you used here.
    
21. 00:33:311 (3) - Same as 00:30:811 (3,6) - , seems like a ctrl+> fixes this one instanty though.
    
22. 00:34:249 (1,1,2,3,4) - This one just feels extremely unintuitive to play because the spacing just goes much different than what you've been using for the past 5 seconds or so. I think something like this should work better while using your mapping logic. Note that 00:34:249 (1) - is stacked over 00:33:832 (3) - .
    
23. 00:36:540 (1) - This slider looks slightly ugly, so I'll be giving you a code with a better curve if you want, here
    
24. 00:37:061 (1,5) - Nazi - not perfectly stacked
    
25. 00:37:895 (1) - Nazi - moving the last sliderpoint to 252;192 makes this blanket look a bit better
    
26. 00:38:311 (3) - ^, moving the middle point to 268;48 does the same thing
    
27. 00:39:457 (2) - Nazi again, doesn't perfectly stack with 00:38:936 (3) - . I know these are really annoying and small but I'm just pointing them out for the sake of "if you don't want to fix them that's completely fine, if you want to fix them it's a small improvement"
    
28. 00:40:186 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,4) - haha tengaku memes xD

Yauxo wrote:

Clarification: I just use flow as a word that explains mapinternal intuitive movement (and maybe placement). Not subjective "I like what I do, but yours is bad" flow.

Natsu wrote:

I'd love to see you reply to mod, specially to the ones you ignore (Hula's one for example), to be honest without reply its hard to know what is going on with the map.

Axarious wrote:

General

1. when i say the "slider points back towards where it came from" i think it's more of the problem that the slider body is in the way of the sliderhead, which makes it a bit harder to read and aim it (players might hit the sliderbody instead of the actual target)

Comfort

1. 00:05:603 (3,4) - looks a bit cramped, perhaps move (4) to 404|281 for a parallelogram and ds fix? Moved and re-positioned the pattern slightly to accurately stack.
2. 00:09:561 (1,2) - and 00:10:082 (1,2) - i think these two look kinda out of place, the low ds between them isn't consistent with the rest of the first 12 seconds Blanketted the first (1) and spaced out the second.
3. 00:27:582 (6,1,2,1) - this ds is a bit wonky to me, it plays like a stream but it's kinda like a weird square thing, maybe something like this or something? Reworked. This was driving me crazy, this is the best suggestion I've gotten on it ever. thanks.
4. 00:32:686 (5) - i think remove nc here and add nc here 00:32:895 (4) - would make it a bit easier to read Done
5. 00:33:311 (4,1) - these nc's on the blue ticks are all a bit hard to read, but i'm not sure if you can really do anything else here :v i know right
6. 00:52:270 (3,4,5) - this ds increase is really awkward to play reworked it a bit
7. 00:52:686 (1,2,3) - the movement for this is doable, but it feels a bit unnatural Reworked a bit, hope it's more readable, the beats here are prime to be rather jerky but i dont want it outright confusing
8. 01:05:395 (4,5,6,7,8,9,1) - this also feels quite unnatural/messy to play, it's also hard to hit, i think i get it 1 in 10 tries
9. 01:08:520 (2,3) - whoa this is weird to play. additionally, 01:08:832 (4) - this is 1/3 as well, i think this rhythm would be a bit better done
10. 01:14:040 (5,6,1,2) - this ds change is kinda weird, but i guess it's okay, it's hittable most of the time I actually fixed this just now after your playtest. Glad we both saw it!
11. 01:17:478 (1,2) - not a big fan of this right -> left movement and the slider points towards where it just came from, perhaps something that'll keep the player moving like this? Rotated and turned
12. 01:18:520 (1,2,3) - i don't hear a sound on 3, only the pitch raise from (1,2) I clearly hear three sounds even at 100%, although they kind of blend a bit together, it'd be far worse to just have a 1/8 double sitting around where the rest of the map never does that
13. 01:20:603 (4,5) - kinda same idea with the slider pointing back towards where it came from, huge loss of momentum
14. 01:27:061 (3,4) - ^
15. 01:28:103 (3,4) - ^ Not entirely sure what to do with these as there aren't many other ways i can map them without putting them at a completely different location.
16. 01:29:874 (4,1) - two things, one is ^, the other is that the following pattern is difficult to read-there's a pause and that stack with the round slider, iunno, not a big fan of that pause there This thing is ridiculously hard to map. I'm going to try to fix it, hold my beer.
17. 01:30:915 (5,6,7) - i think (6) should be moved to 341|243 and ctrl j'd to keep momentum in this slider pattern done
18. 01:32:374 (7,1) - slider points towards where it came from
19. 01:34:353 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,6) - this is all very weird, 01:34:874 (4) - and 01:35:395 (4,5) - are probably the hardest to hit out of these Reworked it a little bit.
20. 01:45:395 (2,3,4,5) - perhaps HJ 00:05:395 (1,2,3,4) - this thing if you decide to fix the small ds :p Done

Ongaku wrote:

phaZ wrote:

[ongakus insane]

1. 00:08:728 (2) - for same reason as above make this also a repeat slider or the other an antijump-non-repeat-slider Kind of confused here...

Thanks for the mod!