00:46 ktgster: here
00:46 ktgster: speak here
00:46 [XV]: Okay
00:46 [XV]: The drums reset at the circle 8
00:46 ktgster: besides, its not like i even have the NCing being based on the drums
00:47 [XV]: Well, at the very start of the song you only have drums
00:47 [XV]: I can see why you added a NC only at the white tick
00:47 [XV]: Here 00:07:980 -
00:48 ktgster: but?
00:48 [XV]: But the thing is that 00:07:758 (8,9) - don't belong in the pattern 00:07:758 (8,9) - nor in the drums either
00:48 ktgster: i think you mixed up your links
00:49 [XV]: Yup
00:49 [XV]: 00:06:202 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - that's the one I was talking about
00:50 [XV]: My point is that 00:07:758 (1,2,1,2,3,4,5) - is a whole pattern
00:50 [XV]: Yet you only add a NC at 00:07:981 (1) -
00:52 ktgster: its plausible, but thats not how i really bother NCing things
00:52 [XV]: The other issue I have is that 00:19:536 (7) - clearly has a lot more intensity that 00:19:758 (8,9,10) - yet 7 is not highlighted in any form
00:52 ktgster: NC structure is based on the song alone, very basic
00:53 [XV]: Well, in this case, it would just look cleaner if you added a NC there
00:53 [XV]: But is not bad on how currently is
00:53 ktgster: and have a 2 note long NC?
00:55 [XV]: You could remove the other NC at 00:07:981 (3) - and add one another 00:08:424 (1) -
00:55 [XV]: But that's just a suggestion
00:56 ktgster: unfortunately, no,
00:56 ktgster: NC's are based on the downbeat, i do not want to change that
00:56 [XV]: Alright
00:56 ktgster: and that other thing?
00:56 [XV]: Yes
00:57 ktgster: you had something about 00:19:536 (7,8,9,10) -
00:57 [XV]: Why 00:19:536 (7) - is not highlighted
00:58 ktgster: highlighted?
00:58 ktgster: theres already a spacing change from 6 to 7
00:58 ktgster: if you're asking to NC, that isn't necessary
00:58 [XV]: No
00:58 [XV]: Not NC
00:58 [XV]: Is just that 7 is waaay more strong than 6 or 8 and 9
00:59 ktgster: its not really that strong
00:59 ktgster: besides, i kept the map in a low space setting so going higher isn't something that would fit anyways
01:00 [XV]: It just looks very similar on spacing with 00:19:758 (8,9,10) - yet is clearly more loud
01:00 ktgster: those are stacked
01:00 [XV]: Yes, but you stacked 7 on top of those
01:02 [XV]: Yet on 00:13:091 (11,1) - between 11 and 1 there is a decent DS increase
01:03 [XV]: They both share a similar concept in sound, yet one is mapped with almost no change on DS while the other has a clear jump
01:06 ktgster: uhh
01:06 [XV]: On what sound 00:42:980 (6) - is mapped? if you delete it you can only hear a drum lead that you didn't follow, because you wanted to follow the deep bass one
01:07 ktgster: both sounds are different and i don't think they should be compared
01:07 ktgster: simply one sound is more emphasized than the other that is all
01:08 [XV]: Yes, I understand, but imho, stacking the circles on such a strong beat feels lackluster
01:08 [XV]: Specially because is not the end of the drums
01:08 ktgster: from what i hear
01:09 ktgster: 00:19:536 (7) - is the strong beat
01:09 ktgster: the notes making the stack aren't as strong and are dampening
01:09 ktgster: hence why the stack
01:10 [XV]: Yes, I'm talking about the DS between 7 and 6
01:11 [XV]: The song is pretty sick btw
01:12 ktgster: 00:42:980 (6) - i thought 6 was emphasized more so i ignored the 1/4 before it
01:13 ktgster: added a note
01:14 [XV]: Is your mapping style on this one adding a circle with a different DS at the end of some streams?
01:15 ktgster: welcome to finger control
01:15 [XV]: lol, It's your style
01:17 [XV]: Wouldn't 00:28:870 (8) - look better like this
http://puu.sh/qSck9/c05db21474.jpg01:18 ktgster: that looks more like its a bit off tbh
01:18 ktgster: and i think it actually looks worse
01:18 [XV]: Just align it with 7 I meant
01:19 ktgster: uhh
01:19 ktgster: okay
01:19 ktgster: i guess its fixed
01:19 [XV]: Same DS, just aligned with 7
01:19 ktgster: wut?
01:22 [XV]: I think you already changed it, so nvm
01:22 [XV]: The rest of the map at a quick glance looks good
01:23 [XV]: I have a few complains about things like this 02:56:646 (1,2,1) -
01:24 [XV]: But that's more up to the style of the mapper
01:24 ktgster: lets just say, i established the usage of doubles and jumpstreams many times
01:24 ktgster: and i personally don't struggle on those and can reliably hit those in actual plays
01:25 [XV]: Yeah, but you could've made them a bit easier like this
http://puu.sh/qScLB/4b3f0499f7.jpg01:26 [XV]: But like I said, it's personal preference
01:27 ktgster: just going to say no as it destroys what i had in mind and your suggestion just does not work
01:28 [XV]: I can understand what you had in mind on that pattern
01:28 [XV]: You wanted a double jump following the sliders you had before
01:29 [XV]: It just puts off the player a lot, because of how it changes
01:30 [XV]: You could make them slightly less hard to read, with the same mapping style you have
01:30 ktgster: i don't think they are hard to read
01:31 ktgster: and sadly, i can't move any circles in that whole set of patterns
01:31 ktgster: i had a few playtesters who nail that part down, if i get complaints on it, then maybe
01:32 ktgster: but for now, i would like to keep it as it is
01:32 [XV]: Yeah, they are not that hard, but still break flow on how you were doing the other patterns before and after it. I mean you can perfectly keep it as it is, just you could make it fit better
01:33 ktgster: i'll keep that in mind then
01:33 [XV]: That would be all for now, take it as a quick mod
01:33 ktgster: are you posting log?
01:33 [XV]: Sure
01:34 [XV]: But it's up to you to give kudos tbh