4399guangguang wrote:

[Cataclysm]

01:34:287 (9) - Change it into a short slider Not a bad idea, but extremely hard to implement for me with the way I've set up the pattern and I think just a note is ok too
01:35:487 (9) - ^

[Insane]

Too many spinners. What do you have against spinners

00:01:287 (1) - Spinner is quite strange Plays fine (I think)
01:00:087 (1) - Not really understand this slow star slider Oh yeah I was gonna change up this section so it feels better. Did that now

[Hard]

The distance between objects is weird.

8 spinners,seriously? C:

00:12:087 (1) - Put it right next to the previous slider It is D:
00:21:687 (1) - Shorten it by 1 beat ?
00:26:487 (1,1,1,1) - These are not necessary to split into 4 combos.Also don't put too close to each other Mmm looks alright
00:32:187 (4) - Distance dude Jumps op
00:38:487 (2) - NC o
00:52:887 (1) - dat distance
00:58:887 (1) - A little bit closer is okay This actually just took me an hour to implement, no joke
01:11:787 (2) - Put it upside down Nah
01:18:987 (1) - Follow the sequence Want to make the beat different for the light whistle
01:27:687 (1,1,1,1) - No NC,too close
01:31:887 (4) - Strange distance
01:34:287 (3) - Short slider as the previous two Ehhh It's alright
01:35:487 (3) - ^
01:39:687 (1) - Put it closer to the sliders
01:44:487 (1) - Distance
01:50:487 (1) - Slider velocity is strange to be suddenly slowed down Very intentional D:

1. 00:10:887 (1,2,3,4) - Feels forced for visuals and hurts readability. I don't even see the point of 3 and 4 having different slider velocities when they're pretty much the same sound, the only difference is that the sound for 3 is held a little bit longer.
2. 00:24:087 (1,2,3) - This angle just feels very weird to snap on imo, maybe ctrl+g 3 for a sharper movement?
3. 00:30:687 (5,6) - I'd space this further away so it doesn't get mistaken as a slider leniency 1/4 jump coming from 00:30:387 (4)
4. 00:33:087 (5,6) - ^
5. 00:36:087 (1,2,3,4) - Same thing mentioned in the first point
6. 00:39:087 (6,1) - This anti-jump felt unintuitive since there's still a drum hit on 00:39:237
7. 00:57:387 (9) - I'd NC this for more readability as a 3/4, the slowdown does make sense but it's still very abrupt
8. 01:22:737 (1,1) - I don't see the purpose behind these NCs, it's just in the midst of 1/2 jump spam and those notes aren't mapped to any unique sounds
9. 01:27:387 (1) - A huge slider velocity boost here really isn't fitting for such a weak and almost inaudible sound, plus the slider ends on 01:27:537 which much stronger. Maybe have the slider velocity increase on 01:27:537 instead
10. 01:28:137 (4,5,6) - This isn't following the melody properly like 01:27:912 (2,3,7,8,9). 6 should be moved forward by a tick and then 5 should be turned into a 1/4 slider.
11. 01:54:087 (1,2) - This gap in the rhythm feels out of place for the peak of the song

1. Uh, this diff is fine, but it can't possibly be used as the lowest diff in the spread when there are so many ds jumps (unless those were unintentional). Also, the overall density feels more like an easy than a normal since you have so many 4/1 and 2/1 sliders and very little 1/2. There's a large gap between this and the hard diff.

1. 00:02:487 (1,1,1,1) - Why is there NC spam here? It's no different than 00:04:887 (1,2,3,4) and 00:07:287 (1,2,3,4), and there's nothing really special going on in the music
2. 00:05:487 (3,4) - Nothing happens in the song but all of a sudden there's a huge jump here, seems like the pattern was forced
3. 00:37:287 (1,1,1,1) - I still don't understand the purpose of the NC spam, that goes for 00:39:687 (1,1,1,1) too
4. 00:40:887 (1,2,3) - This is difficult to read as a polarity change, you spaced them like 1/2 but players will naturally ignore 1/4 slider tails anyways
5. I guess this is more of a personal thing, but I think players will find stuff like 00:44:562 (1,1) and 01:12:087 (1,1) extremely underwhelming and boring for their level of skill. Imo you can definitely map some of those parts out more.

1. 00:02:487 (1,1,1,1) - Again, I don't see the point of the NC spam
2. 00:09:687 (1,2,3) - This polarity change is pretty difficult to read with this spacing, especially with a 1/2 jump right before which is higher in distance. I'd space them out more
3. 00:34:887 (1,2,3) - ^
4. 01:27:387 (1) - Same thing mentioned in Calamity diff

sukiNathan wrote:

from queue

[Cataclysm]

1. 00:10:887 (1,2,3,4) - Feels forced for visuals and hurts readability. I don't even see the point of 3 and 4 having different slider velocities when they're pretty much the same sound, the only difference is that the sound for 3 is held a little bit longer. The intention isn't really for the visual, I want the SV to slow down then speed up quickly again exactly the way it is now because that's how I feel the music plays. I could potentially substitute (3) as a single circle instead if it's too much of a problem, but since the visual did work out alright, I'd rather keep it if possible
2. 00:24:087 (1,2,3) - This angle just feels very weird to snap on imo, maybe ctrl+g 3 for a sharper movement? I don't understand. Ctrl+G doesn't seem like a good option either
3. 00:30:687 (5,6) - I'd space this further away so it doesn't get mistaken as a slider leniency 1/4 jump coming from 00:30:387 (4) Quite readable with high AR + I don't want to disrupt the pattern too much
4. 00:33:087 (5,6) - ^
5. 00:36:087 (1,2,3,4) - Same thing mentioned in the first point
6. 00:39:087 (6,1) - This anti-jump felt unintuitive since there's still a drum hit on 00:39:237 Hmm, I don't like it, I think. I'm mapping the strongest prominent sounds to emphasize them further. Giving too much love to the insignificant side skits moves attention away from the main act
7. 00:57:387 (9) - I'd NC this for more readability as a 3/4, the slowdown does make sense but it's still very abrupt I think it's fine, don't wanna be NC'ing randomly
8. 01:22:737 (1,1) - I don't see the purpose behind these NCs, it's just in the midst of 1/2 jump spam and those notes aren't mapped to any unique sounds This is entirely for visual purposes to satisfy probably only myself. So, in my head, I find NC in the middle of a polygon very satisfying if it's disconnected from the notes that follow, so that's why the first NC is there. The second NC is there mainly to follow the previous NC pattern
9. 01:27:387 (1) - A huge slider velocity boost here really isn't fitting for such a weak and almost inaudible sound, plus the slider ends on 01:27:537 which much stronger. Maybe have the slider velocity increase on 01:27:537 instead Disagree. There's no sound from your suggested timestamp to the next beat. I opted to implicitly map the strong sound at your timestamp with the shape of the slider angling sharply and ending abruptly on it
10. 01:28:137 (4,5,6) - This isn't following the melody properly like 01:27:912 (2,3,7,8,9). 6 should be moved forward by a tick and then 5 should be turned into a 1/4 slider. To account for the stronger drums, this is the best rhythm I can come up with
11. 01:54:087 (1,2) - This gap in the rhythm feels out of place for the peak of the song Fixed

[Normal]

1. Uh, this diff is fine, but it can't possibly be used as the lowest diff in the spread when there are so many ds jumps (unless those were unintentional). Also, the overall density feels more like an easy than a normal since you have so many 4/1 and 2/1 sliders and very little 1/2. There's a large gap between this and the hard diff.
   
   Maybe I don't know much about this, but from my experience, new players struggle mainly with slider mechanics and low AR (I've introduced countless friends to this game and every single one of them has the same problem if they're not already musically-inclined). The way I opt to map lower-end diffs is to not worry about DS because that's actually not something new players struggle with (people know how to use their mouse to click things, they're just maybe not used to clicking it at exactly the right time). So I use higher AR to make the map more readable, and faster SV to ease on learning slider mechanics. I use simpler rhythm so the map is still easy to follow, and then I can map more visually since I'm no longer restricted by DS or slow SV. That's the style choice on how I map anyways.... I really honestly disagree that this can't be the lowest diff. Something easier will be completely mundane and will hurt the set in my opinion.
   
   As for the difficulty gap between Normal and Hard, I think the gap between Hard and Insane is almost identical, and similarly Insane to Extra. Since hitting higher difficulty caps grows exponentially, the skill required to improve from playing the Normal to Hard is actually similar to that from Hard to Insane. I actually think the biggest gap is from Insane to Extra in this case, but people are generally more lenient about that which is why it's the way it is. Hope I can get my point across.
   
   (Oh yeah, also, that being said, 1/2 jumps in Normals is completely not fine and I never do anything like that. Also using 1/2 sliders like you suggest would probably require me to overlap them, and I think overlapped 1/2 sliders with CS3 are super ugly)

[Hard]

1. 00:02:487 (1,1,1,1) - Why is there NC spam here? It's no different than 00:04:887 (1,2,3,4) and 00:07:287 (1,2,3,4), and there's nothing really special going on in the music So, without NC spam, it looks really weird to me just because of the pattern. NC spam just for the visuals as the sliders completely overlap one another
2. 00:05:487 (3,4) - Nothing happens in the song but all of a sudden there's a huge jump here, seems like the pattern was forced I can't deny, this was 100% fullly-intentionally forced Visuals > all
3. 00:37:287 (1,1,1,1) - I still don't understand the purpose of the NC spam, that goes for 00:39:687 (1,1,1,1) too
4. 00:40:887 (1,2,3) - This is difficult to read as a polarity change, you spaced them like 1/2 but players will naturally ignore 1/4 slider tails anyways Not for Hard players
5. I guess this is more of a personal thing, but I think players will find stuff like 00:44:562 (1,1) and 01:12:087 (1,1) extremely underwhelming and boring for their level of skill. Imo you can definitely map some of those parts out more. I love spinners I actually think they're really exciting, especially for the average osu player (I could be completely wrong of course)

[Insane]

1. 00:02:487 (1,1,1,1) - Again, I don't see the point of the NC spam
2. 00:09:687 (1,2,3) - This polarity change is pretty difficult to read with this spacing, especially with a 1/2 jump right before which is higher in distance. I'd space them out more Anti-jump
3. 00:34:887 (1,2,3) - ^
4. 01:27:387 (1) - Same thing mentioned in Calamity diff

good luck!

Desperate-kun wrote:

Talking about the actual map, I do understand the concept behind it. Jumps are used in a way mappers typically use them in any diff higher than Normal. From the perspective of an experimental mapper it doesn't make much sense to use an entirely different concept (distance snapping all the way through) in the Normal if anything up from Hard is allowed to have big jumps after sliders, so that concept is used for the Normal too. It is also used consistently and the patterns are clearly structured and make sense.

Now there is the problem that in most situations there is a direction change directly after the jumps, leading to setups that might be very hard to read for newbie players. Just to give a few examples:
00:04:887 (1,2) -
00:07:287 (1,2) -
00:13:887 (3,1) -
For each of those, the tail of the second slider is closer to the previous object than it's head. This is repeated throughout the whole map. That means this Normal requires the skill of differentiating between sliderhead and slidertail via approach circles / numbers on sliders, which is a skill most Normal difficulty players don't have.

Another problem I can see is that many of the jumps are almost twice as big as the regular distance spacing, which means the 2/1-gaps could be misread as 1/1-jumps too (or the other way around, but 1/1-jumps are used much more frequently and introduced way earlier). There are different ways professional players read complicated rhythms like that, paying close attention to approach circles (very hard) and playing after intuition (objects will more likely start on a white / red tick than a blue tick for example (for higher diffs), which would mean objects will more likely start on beat 1 or 3 than beat 2 or 4 transfered to this particular map) are two of them. The map is not made in a way that would contradict these strategies, but those are skills that most Normal difficulty players don't have either.

I would say the difficulty does well at what it's trying to do but it doesn't fit as the lowest difficulty of the mapset due to the advanced skills required to play it that I explained above. I would recommend to add an Easy difficulty that introduces jump usage, but doesn't do the things I mentioned above (meaning it DOESN'T use jumps with direction changes directly after and it DOESN'T use jumps twice as big as the standard spacing). That would most likely be the best option.

I'm sorry for my complex sentences here, I didn't really know how to put it more simple though.

Bakari wrote:

If a player is capable of reading jumps they should proceed to Hard difficulties, Normals give them an idea of distance spacing and interrupting this is irrational and will have a negative impact on future mapping in general.

With all of the explanation given above, I've to say just one thing, players are not machines indeed, but they are getting used to more intense rhythms and breaking that process with jumps is not an option to me.

Jumps are breaking normal spacing values, this statement alone makes the idea of using jumps in Normals inappropriate.

Kibbleru wrote:

k some things
bold = u better fix if u want me to buble xd

hard
01:04:887 (1) - touches hp bar sam
01:39:387 (1,1) - it would be better if u space this the same as the rest tbh tr
01:57:987 - why did u skip this one, u dont do it elsewhere uh because the slider is cool
02:09:687 (1,2,3,4) - imo its alot better to play if u just removed 1 repeat from each of them, it would fit pretty nice too imo. cuz the motion is kinda weird rn ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww


insane
00:34:887 (1,2) - imo swapping nc would make it easier to read? holy actually no joke this is god suggestion
02:00:387 (4) - eh what am I looking at

SPOILER

extra
00:11:187 (3) - i would honestly ask for either an nc or slight length variation from the previous ones pce
00:36:387 (3) - ^
00:17:187 (2) - curve this more for the structure a

SPOILER

00:27:687 (1,2) - i legit don't know why but the way u made this part actually looks so awful LOL. try some red anchors maybe? uh fixed? iodk

SPOILER

00:32:487 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - i think in general could use some more spacing here. I think the pacing is alright, rhythm gets kinda complicated here
00:58:137 (4,5) - more spacing pls, so ppl can tell the difference between this and 00:57:687 (1,2) - true

u gotta make ur white combo colour darker, its unrankable otherwise iirc a

is the source supposed to be tohou or bms? the ranked version has tohou the original song this was remixed from is from Touhou. This one is from BMS which is apparently what we're putting as the source. BMS, original song