Kibbleru wrote:

u should use at least tickrate 2 for this type of style OH, right, changed in all diffs.

ex
00:08:586 (8) - repeat is so hard to see >< can u increase sv for this slider I guess incresaing the SV could work too, should be okay now.
00:54:186 (3,4,5) - flow is kinda sharp here, and if ur going to map like this, i think you should avoid things that are jittery to play. To be honest I use sharp flow in more places, it goes really well with the vocals. e.g. 00:53:386 (7,1) - 01:01:586 (9,1) - The reasoning for the movement from 3->4 is the vocals obv but the movement from 4->5 is quite fun and not as terrible as it might seem in the editor, here's how it actually plays http://puu.sh/o593N/f25cd66713.jpg (excuse my terrible paint skills lol)
01:04:386 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - idk what to really say about this.. dont u think the spacing gets a little harsh at the end lol Not really, it's quite smooth, everyone who played it found it just fine Maybe it's a bit scary on the editor.
01:07:186 (5,6) - why is this spaced so big? Mostly because of the sudden strong violin (and because it looks really well!), unlike 01:09:686 (9,1) - which starts really low


insane
00:32:986 (1,2,3,4) - can u not do something like this lol, too misleading and no manual stack on 00:32:986 (1,2) - doesn't help cuz it all looks the same in game Not really sure what to do here then, everything else is even more overdone or awful.
01:03:986 (3,4,5) - u need more spacing here, looks too similar to 01:04:586 (1,2,3,4) - NC is the best I can offer, the pattern is not that hard to distinguish and you can hear the intensity change too.
01:10:686 (6,7,8) - the stack makes the movement super jittery, can u either space them all out or stack them all Yeah I agree. BUT GOD DAMNIT everything else just doesn't work, 01:10:786 (7) - is clearly the strongest drum, the play here should be this way 01:10:386 (5,6,7) - is supposed to play like a triplet on sliderend but then it gets mixed with a double here 01:10:786 (7,8) -, honestly blame the song, I tried placing the slider at 1/2 but it makes the whole pattern sound awful. I do think lieaving it like this is the wise choice too, as the pattern is well constructed otherwise.

hard
00:27:686 (4) - unecessary triplets here imo I used those triplets to fill in some of the rhythm, since the vocals halt there, unlike 00:29:186 (3) - and 00:32:586 (3) -
00:30:886 (4) - ^
why does hard diff have lower CS than advanced? follow something linear pls? Yeah okay, I explained it previously and I will again, Hard is big spacing oriented, means I focus on big movements rather than aim, hence the forgiving circle size. For example - 00:49:186 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - on Hard, compared to 00:49:186 (1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1) - on Insane, I hope it's understandable.
also i think its better to rename advanced > hard and hard > hyper Eghh, could be fine but I don't really want to user Hyper here, seems unfitting.

normal
00:43:586 (4,5,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1) - can u insert a 1/1 break somewhere here? 1/2 chain a bit too long imo I tried, again and again, but the vocals are just intense and non-stop here, it just feels wrong to cut it somewhere, 00:44:986 (3) - was 1/2 at first but I made it easier with a 1/1, maybe a halt at 00:46:786 (4) - would work but that's the endof the pattern and there's a 1/1 break right afterwards, so I think it's best to keep it as it is.

easy
can u not use 1/2s here? >< otherwise it becomes more like a normal [b]That's unavoidable :< Shift between strong beats and vocals is on 1/2, I can't avoid that completely otherwise it's just terrible, there's still quite a gap between this and Normal.[/b

2016-04-04 03:17 Kibbleru: as for 00:32:986 (1,2) - in insane
2016-04-04 03:17 Kibbleru: u can try swapping the nc maybe
2016-04-04 03:17 Kibbleru: itll help a bit It was like that at the origin, some people said it should be this way and some this way, I guess I'll NC it.
2016-04-04 03:17 Kibbleru: 01:04:386 (5) - maybe nc on here too? It's just a NC, so okay.
2016-04-04 03:17 Kibbleru: to indicate start of stream
2016-04-04 03:19 Kibbleru: on easy 01:09:386 (3) - i dont think u need to use 1/2 here If I move it to the red tick then it'll be even worse, I did follow all the strong vocals I could on this kiai, which was my aim from the beginning, so it wouldn't be right.
2016-04-04 03:19 Kibbleru: 01:09:386 - doesn' really land on any percussion
2016-04-04 03:20 Kibbleru: so its rather a weak beat
2016-04-04 03:20 Kibbleru: 01:03:586 (3) - consider adding repeat If I do that, I'd have to map everything between 01:03:586 (3,1) -, otherwise it's awkward, I intentionally ignored the vocals between the kiais, it's cool.

ztrot wrote:

Sorry about this but I'm not sure this is ready quite yet.

[DiFf_(k)NAME]
I see what you are doing with this map and I'm wanting to start off by saying the map isn't bad but there are a lot of inconsistent spacing that could be made consistent while still keeping your vision in tact.
01:04:386 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - prime example currently the spacing is all over the place I figure you are trying to match the pitch change, but there is a far more consistent approach to this, you can take 1 2 3 and make them all one consistent spacing and on 4 (where the pitch actually changes you could increase the spacing a bit more like in this screenshot https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/4870661 I suggest you take a bit more time on the final diff and look through it fully as these happen a bit more than once. I would also like to see some discussion about possible consistent fixes from the community and as to why you might feel this is okay. overall the set isn't bad timing is good and all the other stuff checks out but trust me someone is going to point out these flaws in spacing so it is better to get it fixed now than wait to have it DQ'ed in the last day. If you have questions feel free to contact me.

1. 01:07:486 (6,7) - I slightlyd increase the spacing here to 1.3, but 1.5 would simple be overkill with the jump from 01:07:186 (5) -

Avishay wrote:

Okay! I've decided to get some more opinions from high rank players on the highest diff, therefore I'll pop the bubble myself, I'll post screenshots and logs here.

Sonnyc wrote:

Avishay wrote:

Okay! I've decided to get some more opinions from high rank players on the highest diff, therefore I'll pop the bubble myself, I'll post screenshots and logs here.

Also better not pop your own bubble using a self-icon since it raises 5 star priority. Doing such stuff isn't right in the ranking procedure, and is unfair for non-bns afterall!

Avishay wrote:

I can't really give a response to that, could you elaborate? I hitsound in a way that is honset to the song and not automated, while keeping note feedback in place.

1. 00:01:586 (1,1,1,1) - These kind of patterns look good and are awesome if they fit, but this is not the case here. In this song the music and the voice at the beginning sound consistent and there technically is no change in the music. I would like to recommend you to do something different instead.
2. 00:05:586 - 00:10:586 - The whole section is quite weird itself, due to that there are some beats that were completely ignored so it can be somehow difficult to understand and to play play also these changes of speeds doesn't helps at all neither.
   00:29:786 (1,2) - Could you explain to me why you've used a spacing lower at this section in compared to the rest that is technically the same kind of rhythm and that you've added jumps there?
3. 00:10:586 (1,1) - The pitch in both sections feels almost the same. The only difference is the sound finish at the background but the voice seems like the same, so a change of speed in this part makes no sense at all.
4. 00:32:786 (7,1,2) - I really don't understand the point of the constantly mapped into a double BPM and then go back to typical 1/2 rhythm? actually this could be even more confused due that the previous object is 1/4 and then swap it into 1/2 is difficult to read anyways I'm quite sure that most of the players will be confused or probably will fail that part so I would suggest you remap the whole pattern by anything else.
5. 01:03:786 (1,2,3,1,2,3,4,5,6,1) - The same thing happens here, just that in this part it is a bit different - but I guess you get the idea.
6. 00:40:386 (2) - This SV makes no sense, the vocal is not that much lower to do something like this.
7. 00:43:286 - How about to add something clickable here? There are some sounds that are quite noticeable.
8. 00:51:186 (1,2,3,4,5) - Overall it's not that bad but I'm pretty sure that this could be more polished, try to make it consistent.
9. 00:56:386 (1,2,5) - I think these kind of jumps are quite inconsistent because the background sound seems like the same all the time and having jumps like this is weird and obviously plays bad.
10. 00:57:186 (7,1) - What are you trying to emphasize here?
11. 00:57:786 (3,4,5,6) - I really would like to see other kind of patterns here, apparently your intention to make it fun is great but the kind of flow you've used seems inappropiate and the cursormovement feels forced as well.
12. 00:58:586 (1,2) - Same as above.
13. 01:14:986 (1,2,3,4,5) - This is way too much for an extra difficulty, the amount of objects in a such a short time feels too dense in my opinion.

Hula wrote:

Stop rushing the bubbles guys!

Gero wrote:

Hello, congratulations for get this mapset qualified but there are some things that concern me a lot and for obvious reasons could be improved.

DiFf_(k)NAME

1. 00:01:586 (1,1,1,1) - These kind of patterns look good and are awesome if they fit, but this is not the case here. In this song the music and the voice at the beginning sound consistent and there technically is no change in the music. I would like to recommend you to do something different instead. That's just wrong, the background sound is being increased in volume, the vocals become more intense, I am trying to understand why you would say something like that. I like that, it fits, it plays well, it looks well, so I can't really agree on that.
2. 00:05:586 - 00:10:586 - The whole section is quite weird itself, due to that there are some beats that were completely ignored so it can be somehow difficult to understand and to play play also these changes of speeds doesn't helps at all neither. It's not complicated at all. Did you even try playing it? Lett me start with the SV changes: 00:08:586 (8) - Done to make the reverse arrow more visible, it has no impact on the gameplay, at all. 00:08:986 (1) - Returning to the original SV before this change. 00:09:586 (1) - Slight increase to make a transition into the next section, since 0.5 -> 1.5 is quite huge, reducing the gap helps. As for the section itself, I can't follow everything, it sounds awful, takes emphasization from vocals, too dense and more stuff, present rhythms are well thought and placed, if you had any suggestion for improvement, I'd like to hear that.
3. 00:29:786 (1,2) - Could you explain to me why you've used a spacing lower at this section in compared to the rest that is technically the same kind of rhythm and that you've added jumps there? Valid concern. But, the patterns in this section use mostly the same rhythm and similar pattern structure, I am not using the same spacing all over this section, it makes it unnecessarily boring. Perhaps it looks a bit odd in the editor, but I can assure you that the whole section plays really well, this specific pattern does not stand out. I'll elaborate a bit more on the spacing anyway - it is quite similar to 00:28:186 (1,2,3) - in that manner, the pattern looks different, but it is spaced the same, giving emphasization to the last slider, if it's such a huge concern I might change it, but it doesn't really matter in my opinion.
4. 00:10:586 (1,1) - The pitch in both sections feels almost the same. The only difference is the sound finish at the background but the voice seems like the same, so a change of speed in this part makes no sense at all. Please, try putting a bit more thought, it's clearly obvious for everyone. 00:10:586 (1) - The sound here is unexpected, giving it huge SV allows the momentum of the surprise to be actually played, at first I wanted to extend 00:10:386 (3) - just to follow the vocals, but it was awful, so I had to follow this note, even though it disturbs the vocals, hence the surprise. 00:10:786 (1) - There's nothing new on the sliderhead, some weird sound started playing but the intensity from the previous slider is gone, reducing the SV is just appropriate, but I ended up making this whole section gimmicky and fun, and it makes sense too.
5. 00:32:786 (7,1,2) - I really don't understand the point of the constantly mapped into a double BPM and then go back to typical 1/2 rhythm? actually this could be even more confused due that the previous object is 1/4 and then swap it into 1/2 is difficult to read anyways I'm quite sure that most of the players will be confused or probably will fail that part so I would suggest you remap the whole pattern by anything else. It is done because the rhythm changes, unlike the previous patterns, there are no vocals at 00:32:986 (1) -, meaning I can't use the same pattern there, anyway there isn't any point of having 00:32:786 (7) - as a 1/4 slider because of the sudden shift to a single 1/2, it just plays odd, I did try it before and it did not work at all. No players got confused here, they aren't supposed to predict how the song plays, but read it and react accordingly, how are you so sure they will fail?
6. 01:03:786 (1,2,3,1,2,3,4,5,6,1) - The same thing happens here, just that in this part it is a bit different - but I guess you get the idea. I don't, we are not in the kiai anymore this is an intersection between both kiai sections, mapping any 1/4 on those 01:03:786 (1,2,3) - is just wrong, nothing supports it, and it takes away the intensity and impact of the next stream.
7. 00:40:386 (2) - This SV makes no sense, the vocal is not that much lower to do something like this. Yeah, this is gimmicky, might a bit hard to understand it immediately. I had explained this whole section before in some comment that I can't seem to find, so I'll just explain again. 00:37:786 (1) - till 00:47:386 (1) - is a section that can get cut to 3 sections, the first two are quite similar, vocal intensity is medium+- and it doesn't really change much, therefore they are mirroring each other, the thitd section is irrelevant in this explanation so I'll cut to the mentioned slider - because the sections are mirrored, the last and first notes of the first and second sections respectively are identical, I wanted to make something that allows the player to actually sense the cut between the sections, the slow reverse slider does it in a nice fashion, both time the head hits it's on a vocal and the slider doesn't put any pressure at all as he plays a mere transition into the upcoming section (I use this word a lot don't I)
8. 00:43:286 - How about to add something clickable here? There are some sounds that are quite noticeable. It's not that noticeable in my opinion, but it does exist. I did follow this note on Insane but not here, my claim behind this is because I want the mirroring pattern to be kinda perfect, the triplet wouldn't work if a sliderend is a part of it, it's just odd. Yeah this might not be the best explanation, but I simply wish to undermap it.
9. 00:51:186 (1,2,3,4,5) - Overall it's not that bad but I'm pretty sure that this could be more polished, try to make it consistent. I am lost on this one, what do you mean by making it more consistent? Spacing is increasing, creating a triangle that builds itself from inside, what's wrong here?
10. 00:56:386 (1,2,5) - I think these kind of jumps are quite inconsistent because the background sound seems like the same all the time and having jumps like this is weird and obviously plays bad. Listen to the violin, I tried following the drums too but as the strongest drums land on the blue ticks it's quite hard, the violin supports this pattern really well, nothing I can add here. But I wonder, how did you conclude that it plays bad? I don't really like this judgement.
11. 00:57:186 (7,1) - What are you trying to emphasize here? Last violin note, it's held and placing it this way makes the whole pattern consistent, along with some buildup to the upcoming vocals.
12. 00:57:786 (3,4,5,6) - I really would like to see other kind of patterns here, apparently your intention to make it fun is great but the kind of flow you've used seems inappropiate and the cursormovement feels forced as well. Hm, it can be improved indeed, changed.
13. 00:58:586 (1,2) - Same as above. That's actually just fine, a bit forceful yeah, but the drums supports it regardless, it's cool.
14. 01:14:986 (1,2,3,4,5) - This is way too much for an extra difficulty, the amount of objects in a such a short time feels too dense in my opinion. Egh.. what? It's literally a 1/4 stream, the whole song is as dense as this.

Best of luck.

Stjpa wrote:

actually I didn't want to mod but it seems like this map needs some. :v

[Easy]
• In the beginning I can't really figure out your system of how ur whistles are placed. It definitely can't be that one "whoosh" sound because it would make the hitsounding inconsistent except you wanted it to be lol. They were copied from the highest diff, but because it is not as dense as the other one the hitsounds are different, fixed it up a bit.
• 00:48:186 (2) - Why didn't you place this slider on the previous red tick for the vocals? You used 1/2 in the kiai too, so this would be a great transition if you ask me. I definitely agree, it's much better.
• 01:09:386 (3) - Shouldn't there be a clap on the sliderhead? Seems inconsistent otherwise. Claps are on redtick, so nope.

[Normal]
• 00:10:386 (5) - Not really satisfying that the downbeat which has a prominent sound on it is not clickable. It's fine, main focus is the vocals, and the halt after the downbeat creates a nice effect with the sliderend.
• 01:17:386 (1,1) - ^ and especially here you can't use an excuse because there's no reason at all to ignore it. There is, vocals. Same happens on advanced but you haven't said anything.

[Advanced]
• 00:24:186 (6) - A kickslider in an Advanced? It's already meh to use them in a Hard. It's pretty good with the violin, what's wrong?
• 00:35:786 (3,4,5) - Not really a problem, but why would you use a custom stack so randomly? It was stacked normally before, however someone suggested I do this to avoid overlapping with 00:35:186 (2) - because of the stack leniency.

Hard is fine, but I really don't know what to say about the spacing in Insane. For that difficulty it seems way too much sometimes.

Avishay wrote:

you can't just judge it without playing it properly

Avishay wrote:

you can just PM me and I'll gladly explain, but don't be disrespectful towards the work done by me, the modders and the other BNs.

Natsu wrote:

Avishay wrote:

you can't just judge it without playing it properly

First wrong point, with experience you can judge mostly any kind of map.

Avishay wrote:

you can just PM me and I'll gladly explain, but don't be disrespectful towards the work done by me, the modders and the other BNs.

Disrespectful? for posting their concerns about your map during Qualified period? qualified period is supposed to be the time where your map get criticism from the community, the one being disrespectful is you, by discouraging people from checking qualify maps, is true that Hula was a bit rude, but take a more deep look to Gero mod, I thn you could still improve your map with it.

anyways GL with this

Natsu wrote:

qualified period is supposed to be the time where your map get criticism from the community

Shiirn wrote:

Natsu wrote:

qualified period is supposed to be the time where your map get criticism from the community

I really didn't want to post in this map thread because I feel like the highest diff's basic concept is sound but could do with large swaths of remapping entirely to pin down the concept (right now with everyone pointing out minor flaws and errors you end up with a patchwerk mess, better to remap with so many bandaids being forced onto it)

but


what the f*** is that supposed to mean?

I thought qualification was supposed to be about QAT checking to make sure maps are error free in the sense that anything clearly looked over (missing hitsounds, wrong snaps, unrankability, etc)

not about having "the community" (which almost always consists of the same handful of people) point out personal judgements on a person's mapping style.


This is just an example, but if you, a modder, were to say "These kind of patterns look good and are awesome if they fit, but this is not the case here. In this song the music and the voice at the beginning sound consistent and there technically is no change in the music. I would like to recommend you to do something different instead." and the mapper were to respond "the volume itself is increasing and thus the spacing and slider speeds are" then that's all that's necessary.


I'm tired of people throwing pointless walls of text to make their posts look big and scary during qualification. It's underhanded and disgusting. Stick to any actual, valid concerns about the rankability of certain patterns. If you think the flow is shit, if you don't like how it plays, go somewhere else. There are hundreds of other maps in pending that could do with that sort of modding. Keep it out of qualification. If it's good enough for a handful of other BNs, then it's good enough for ranking - whether you personally like it or not.

ztrot wrote:

Overall quality is a rankablity issue, it will continue to be a rankablity issue

FCL wrote:

• [diff_name]

1. 00:01:586- volume of this slider sounds a bit loud imo, reducing to 30% looks better
2. 00:02:586 (1,2) - hmmm, this high spacing between sliders with low sv at the beginning of the map plays kinda uncomfortable (at least for me exactly). At least 7x between sliders could works better I admit it's a bit extreme but I'll keep it anyway, it's fun and not hard at all.
3. 00:04:186 (1,2) - something similar, but 8x here could works good. Anyway you should get more opinions about it I will.
4. 00:10:586 (1,1,1) - since you had mapped these sliders to vocal, would be good you will make muting of the tails of these sliders, cuz they haven't some sounds
5. 00:14:686 (7) - this combo feels a bit long, so I recommend you add nc here since spacing was changed
6. 00:19:586 (6) - nc would be good too for better readability of stack
7. 00:22:986 (7,1) - just you could improve this blanket
8. 00:23:386 (1,3) - seems you made these 1/2 sliders intentionally, but anyway I think that mapping of 1/4 would work good cuz fit with song better. just replace these sliders to 1/4 repeats looks like great idea, just try. https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/5235431 I don't really like those, not a fan of such patterns.
9. 00:25:986 (5) - I'd add nc's for all these sliders cuz sections with 3 kicksliders looks different from previous patterns Yeah but it's consistent, NC would just be too spammy.
10. 00:49:186 (1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1) - nc spam looks fine for me, but you could make the placement of notes more structured, now they looks kinda randomly and doesn't so understandable imo I tried make it something that supports back&forth movement, it seems good for me.
11. 00:51:186 (1,2,3,1,2) - seems whistles fit good with these circles, cuz we have only vocal without music, just try again
12. 01:15:986 (2,3,4) - ^same for heads of sliders
13. pretty good stuff, and remapped diff seems better for me than before lul

Strategas wrote:

[name diff]

00:02:586 (1,2,4,1,2) - this spacing is really overdone here, this is so calm, it doesn't matter if there is a buildup sound, it just doesn't call for this spacing, you should try emphasizing differently here I'll keep that in mind.

00:05:586 (4) - then it's weird you put no pressure here when you focused so much on spacing the vocals uhhh

00:07:386 (4) - dunno if you just don't nc here cause it looks better, but it breaks consistency

00:08:786 (2) - might sounds dumb but, I'm assuming you nced 00:08:586 (1) - because of sv change but didn't nc 00:08:786 (2) - tbh I find no need to nc 00:08:586 (1) - in the first place if you don't follow your ncing logic,

00:09:586 - aaa this green line does nothing, I guess it won't hurt to remove it

00:19:586 (6) - nc for consistency

00:28:486 (2) - you can possibly polish this slider, I just find it ew atm, 00:29:786 (1) - is much better

00:35:386 (1) - ctrl g plays much better since you made it linear it's kick slider and has even amount of space between 00:34:986 (3,4,1) - on the clickable object, it will not feel comfy when dealing with same movement on different distance

00:39:786 (6) - I disagree with changing the shape here, if you keep it like 00:38:186 (3) - 00:38:986 (3) - it will be much cooler imo Feels forced for me

00:39:386 (4) - also nc

00:40:498 - slider end unsnapped

00:58:986 (2,3) - looks sloppy, I'm sure you can polish

01:03:186 (7) - nc?

01:11:186 (7) - nc instead of 01:11:586 (1) - ? seems more reasonable to me if you compare note intensity, also I dunno if it's good here to keep that slider on downbeat even if you follow that vocal, the instrument is also strong here

01:13:186 (8) - missing clap on sliderhead

01:12:786 (7) - I'd suggest nc here, remove nc at 01:13:986 (1) - and add nc 01:14:586 (3) - or 01:14:186 (2) - ,the slider end would be ideal place for nc but you have it on slider end which I don't agree either xd, then nc 01:14:986 (5) - because of sv change at 01:15:386 (9) - and just fits the music, then removing nc on 01:15:786 (1) - and adding on 01:15:986 (2) - would make more sense to the music atleast

01:16:988 - slider end unsnapped

ai mod pointing the stack leniency thing, dunno up to you to change it or not

oh and 00:16:786 (5,1) - 00:24:086 (1,2,3) - 00:17:486 (3,4,5,6) - not sure if you intended to keep the antiflow movements here, but they are only for challenge if anything since they don't really play that well, unless you're beyong this level


didn't expect to write much here, overall the aesthetics were the main thing for me, but that's subjective I guess. I liked the kiai tho xd

hope it helps somehow, good luck requalifying

Lasse wrote:

even though this was remapped I'd feel bad to get kd for modding the same thing twice lol
map: https://osu.ppy.sh/s/455756 just pick one of the two extras or something, it doesnt have enough mods to go for ranking yet anyways :v

general stuff was already checked well enough here in the past so I'll skip that

[ex ex]
00:05:586 (4) - having this spaced like 00:03:986 (4) - (or even more) would fit the vocal+pitch wy better than a stack
00:09:786 (3,1) - not stacking this would make 00:12:986 (5,1) - easier to get since right now it'S easy to expect the second one to also be a stacked 1/1 (at least is messed me up on my sightread and I'd consider my ar9.3 reading fine enough)
00:17:286 (2) - would work wel las a kickslider to cover the weaker sound on the white tick, probably sth like http://i.imgur.com/uKrdTOy.jpg
00:24:286 (3) - slider starting on blue tick doesnt work that well here cause cause what? .-, blame the song
00:29:786 (1,2) - i hate pointing out minor visual things, but http://i.imgur.com/02NX78U.jpgwould look so much nicer than the sligh overlap on the slidertail
00:40:386 (2) - is unsnapped, you probably wanted 0.9x sv here?
00:46:586 (2,3) - if you go with the "muted 1/4 sliders to emphasize vocals" thing then shoudnt those also be such sliders?
or maybe at least 00:45:786 (5,2) - cause they even have weak sounds on the blue ticks
01:03:186 (7) - missed nc? fits your 4/1 pattern in the chorus
01:16:786 (4) - unsnapped again, should use 2x sv or change the length slightly, but the first option fits the pattern better
01:17:786 (1) - could be spaced more to emphasize the finish, with how high the spacing before is it's unlikely to be misread as 1/2, sth like http://i.imgur.com/xOLAn9S.jpg
01:18:386 (4,6) - would work well with a bit higher sv cause they are pretty strong and high pitched

Left wrote:

M4M place holder use!
http://osu.ppy.sh/s/452412

00:17:786 (6) - NC? for consistency?
00:21:086 (1) - ^
00:22:786 (5) - NC
00:26:886 (2,3) - better blanket
00:40:186 (1,1) - I think it's really uncomfortable to use this DS while 00:37:786 (1,2) - -> 00:38:586 (1,2) - -> 00:39:386 (1,2) - -> increasing DS Yeah but those are 1/4 sliders that put more pressure in the current context.
00:41:786 (4) - NC
00:43:986 (3,4,5) - how about using same pattern with 00:43:586 (1,2) - . now I think it's not suitable for downbeat. It's fine because of the vocals.
00:56:386 (2,4) - blanket
00:52:186 (1) - How about using NC every 2 downbeat? it's kiai part.
01:06:786 (7) - NC
01:17:386 (1) - I think using more fast slider would be better..but it's your interpretation It is.
00:58:986 (2,3,4) - DS between 2,3 is too low, considering other same patterns and song's difficulty. And one more, it's too linear pattern (2->3->4) I felt a bit hard to hit 4. How about at least use different flow like here 01:11:986 (4,5,6) - ? It's not completely linear, I agree it's a bit tough to play, but it is planned in a way that allows you to quickly move to 3 without actually following 2, I think it's cool.

Good luck! I like this map.

Cellina wrote:

Diff... what was the diff's name xD

1. 00:05:786 (1,2,3) - what about this?
2. 00:32:386 (5,6,7) - why did you used 1/2 slider even you used 1/4 for other parts? i strongly recommend change into the 1/4. It doesn't work well at all, unfortunately.
3. 00:44:186 (5) - NC?
4. 00:52:486 - place a note here with stacking on 00:52:586 (2) - ? It's overmapped :< I'd love to do this but I decided to avoid overmapping as much as I can here.

nice beatmap, gl!

wonders wrote:

i strong recommend you keep the original one and find a new bat, THIS IS NOT TOO DIFFICULT, (40000+rank）even i can play it

Xayler wrote:

Isn't the CS now too high compared to Insane? It goes from 3,5 to 4,8 , where is normal 4? I think that 4,8 is too high, maybe 4,2 or something would be better to aim.
Also the 0,3x slider velocity, it's remembering me pensamento beatmap now, lol.
I also think that the previous one was better, maybe mix the new and previous one together? Or just maybe this mapset doesn't need an Extra, that would also be an option, well making insane a bit harder then.
Looking forward to this map evolution!

I would do a proper mod, but my experience isn't that high so idk.

pishifat wrote:

Avishay wrote:

Decent formatting in your mod post is viewed positively.

u did this to yourself

NORMAL
thE diFficUlty itSeLf is k but wAy tOo deNse foR tHe loWest diFf:(
lIke reAlly yOu nEed An eaSy, eVeN iF it woUlD mEan uNdeRmaPping a loT oF tHe reD tiCk snArEs aNd nOisE spAm StuFf
oH aNd soMe hItSouNds (wHiCh woUld bE on aLl diFfs i guESs):
01:18:620 (2) - miSsinG fiNish or soMEthing liKe 01:21:820 (2) -
01:04:220 (2) - sAMe soRta ThiNg lIkE 01:02:620 (2) -
00:49:020 (5) - fiNisH>clAp tbH muSiC

ADVANCED
00:22:020 (1,2,3) - sUpeR miNor buT dUnNo hoW intEntiOnal tHe swiTchiNg to 1.5x sPaCinG waS hEre sInCe evEryThiNg iS 1.4 in thE seCtiOn anD muSIc is SameEe

HARD
thE

INSANE
00:08:820 (5) - sHoulD pRobAblY gEt riD oF thAt LasT rEpeaT likE You diD wiTh tHe exTra. i tHinK yoU dId iT on tHe upPer diFf for lEnienCy whEn moViNg to tHe neXt NoTe, buT lenIenCy froM juSt ClicKinG is A tHinG toO (espEciaLly WhEn lOts of pEoPle tRy To siNglEtaP stuFf liKe tHis soMeHoW)
01:02:620 (4,1) - pLeAse yoUr cuRreNt plAceMent Is makIng iT seEm liKe strEam sTarTs At 01:02:920 (1) - wHich iT Um doESnt
seParAtiNg 4 And 1 spaCing wIsE adDs to The wHat Too
aNd bLue TicK nEw cOmBoinG wiThOut inDiCatIve sPacIng is LikE noT idEaL SinCe coMboINg asSisTS reAdiNg bY alWAys hAvIng tHem StaRt oN wHitE/redzZzzZZZz tHiS wAs oN tEe Bn tEst YOu alrEadY KnOw iT
ooOOo aND tHe SamE thIng hapPeNs on eXtrA pLs


EXTRA!!!!
00:01:820 (1,1) - sV indICaTinG tHe bUilD uP woUlD Be coOl
00:40:420 (3) - sOmeThiNg tO MaKe pEoplE knOw thIs iS aCtuAlLy haLviNg in sPEed wOulD bE o K
00:19:420 (5,1) - 00:21:020 (4,1) - aSsuMinG yOu ReaD tHe raNt oN inSanE u kNow wHaT i WanT to SAy. sWaPpinG nCs wOulD mAke TheSe Not GroSs
01:15:220 (1,2,3,4,1) - UM wouLd haVe moRe oF a bUilD up eFfeCt iF yOu aCtualLy sTartEd wIth NoT-huGe sPaCIng. bEginNing wItH yoUr pReViouS usUaL 1/4 sPacInG 01:14:420 (7,8,1) - thEn goiNg Up frOm thEre Is liKe "wOah It'S geTtiNg faSTeR"" RatHer thAn "woAh iT's FasT" yeS
01:18:620 (3) - sHouLd ReaLly hAve SomE sOrT oF emPhaSis To hEre:(

https://osu.ppy.sh/s/414289 i have to apply handsome's mod and do some timing thing but after that $$$$$$$

Bearizm wrote:

u did this to yourself

pishifat wrote:

hi, mod req

https://osu.ppy.sh/s/406273

thanks in advance !

MAH BASS CANNON wrote:

pishifat QAT, AXION ranked...time to bring this gem back from the dust? with old diff maybe? for what it's worth no one iv'e spoken to about this map thinks the old diff is "unreadable", it's the exact same as any other alternating map.

Avishay wrote:

This beatmap was submitted using in-game submission on יום שישי 28 אוקטובר 2016 at 13:26:43

Artist: (K)NoW_NAME
Title: Knew day
Source: 灰と幻想のグリムガル
Tags: hai to gensou no grimgar op opening tv size
BPM: 150
Filesize: 17737kb
Play Time: 01:22
Difficulties Available:

1. Advanced (2.97 stars, 201 notes)
2. DiFf_(k)NAME (5.32 stars, 364 notes)
3. Easy (1.33 stars, 84 notes)
4. Hard (3.58 stars, 281 notes)
5. Insane (4.48 stars, 357 notes)
6. Normal (1.98 stars, 153 notes)

Download: (K)NoW_NAME - Knew day
Download: (K)NoW_NAME - Knew day (no video)
Information: Scores/Beatmap Listing
---------------
yeee lets undermap and insert big jumpss
old (new) extra - https://puu.sh/rYnjT/981a06328c.osu