1. 01:01:672 (1,1) - drum sampleset to suit the hard hitting sound (also keeps it consistent with 01:38:595 (1,2) - )
2. 02:24:557 (1,2) - f-c to c-f due to higher to heavy sound(same as below)
3. 02:27:441 (1,2,3,4) - f-c-c-f to c-c-f-f to emphasize the change from a high to heavy sound (kind of like a breakdown)
4. 02:42:057 (2) - change addition from soft to auto to keep consistency from this and 02:35:903 (2) -
5. 02:48:210 (2) - same as above (but add a whistle here)
6. 04:42:441 (1,3) - change to drum sample.s +whistle here to keep consistency with the sound being hitsounded at 04:42:730 (2) - (also sounds pretty sweet)

pinataman wrote:

This song has a very mild pacing curve.

00:30:133 (2,3) – This spacing feels a little big. The increase to ¼ rhythm already increases the intensity nicely, why do you need a bigger DS as well? The spacing isn't that large when you account for the 1/2 leniency.

00:46:480 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1) – There's a lot of cool pitch changes going on here in the melody. There's a lot of opportunities to express these changes with a change in DS which I think would make a nice play experience. The focus here is on the offbeat melody. The pitch changes are largely irrelevant, the offbeat melody already emphasizes them indirectly.
01:39:172 (1) – similar instances

01:26:672 (2,1) – This flow is kind of awkward since the slider direction at the head changes direction very drastically. This has a very strong effect on the player, and I don't see anything in the music it goes with in this overall calm part. Try a rotation like: http://puu.sh/pvBgg/c91ca82d90.jpg Not happenin'. Slider's fine as it is.

01:32:057 (1,3) – These notes feel unequally emphasized. Is there anything you can do to emphasize (1) more so that the huge change in intensity is a lot more clear? (Can you reduce the DS 01:30:903 (3,4) – or perhaps even consider making a slider somewhere in here?) If you can't emphasize (1) more, than the huge DS change into (3) feels a little too extreme relative to how much you built up, so it feels appropriate to nerf the DS a little (to maybe 6.50x?). They're unusually emphasized because they're very powerful. I heavily disagree with using a slider for any of these notes, although I may decrease the spacing if other people feel it is too large as well.

03:46:095 (3) – Why squiggle the bottom of this slider? You reserve the squiggle affect for 1/8 disruptions at 01:14:749 (3) - , so these feel slightly at odds with each other? The flute quavers a bit at this point but without going full distortion-y. This is just a bit of a wiggle, it's not actually vibrating.

04:27:826 (1) – This downbeat is quite strong. Why give so little distance for it? The way it's mapped feels too weak. sure

04:30:518 (1) – To me, the overall tone of this section of the song feels too calm to support the big change in intensity you're going for, nor does this “drop” sound deserve such a huge change in spacing. There is no big change in intensity for a 1/1 section. This is just off to the side to emphasize the don hit.

04:44:364 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) – Why use repetition in the flow? Starting a new flow structure on each NC feels like it would add something exciting and spontaneous in a similar way the double bass is rejuvenating the song. A similar kind of argument can be made from a broader perspective. This new section of the song is what 04:39:557 (2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2) – is building into, so new flow structures helps show the radical transition away from the calm section, where as repetition keeps the map calm. ehhhhhhhhhhhhhh i feel like you're using words of which you have no idea what the meanings are. There is no particular flow here, it's just a mash section.

Tl;dr: Sometimes you're too crazy, sometimes you're not crazy enough.

There's a lot of cool, expressive patterns in this map, so even though I don't enjoy the song, you make it nice to play. Good luck!

Quite Cynical wrote:

(stole my song hmph)

f being finish, c being clap etc.

1. 01:01:672 (1,1) - drum sampleset to suit the hard hitting sound (also keeps it consistent with 01:38:595 (1,2) - )
2. 02:24:557 (1,2) - f-c to c-f due to higher to heavy sound(same as below)
3. 02:27:441 (1,2,3,4) - f-c-c-f to c-c-f-f to emphasize the change from a high to heavy sound (kind of like a breakdown)
4. 02:42:057 (2) - change addition from soft to auto to keep consistency from this and 02:35:903 (2) -
5. 02:48:210 (2) - same as above (but add a whistle here)
6. 04:42:441 (1,3) - change to drum sample.s +whistle here to keep consistency with the sound being hitsounded at 04:42:730 (2) - (also sounds pretty sweet)

will try and find more but this is all I could find in term of hitsounds

all done

Anxient wrote:

m4m for evanescent

cherryblossom just exploded.
01:39:172 (1,2,1,2) - i think itll be better if the white ticks are clickable coz there is more emphasis on it rather than your current pattern (which is missing some clickable beats) I disagree. Offbeat is love, offbeat is life. I'd rather have the player experience the slightly-off sensation of offbeat patterning than have the extremely snooze-worthy white beat patterning.
01:51:672 (1) - i think the spacing is way too wide. 4.9x spacing lol. try ctrl g? It's fine.
02:54:749 (3) - space this out a BIT more to emphasize the louder piano note? It's pretty much the same piano note as always.
02:55:518 (1) - give this more spacing? like at least use 0.5x? k
03:01:672 (1) - same for here. k
03:48:018 (4) - NC? ya
04:25:133 (1) - try placing over in x261 y349 k
04:42:441 (1,2) - overlap bothers me tbh intentional overlap, but moved a bit
04:54:941 (2,2) - this aint stacked and its bothering mek
05:07:249 (2,1) - consider distancing this lol its so close to overlappingk

• I find it a little offputting how you have 00:12:441 (1,2) - 00:14:748 (1,2) - these two at higher spacing than the one 00:13:594 (1,2) - in the middle of it, seemz kinda random and weird imo, would rather have the same higher spacing on all 3 of them (not lower cuz therez extra brass sound at bg xd) or make them all lower cuz thiss is the only point you do higher spacing like this
  00:50:133 - Yknow how you increase the spacing here because of the piano? Well why not -small- jumpz at 00:51:672 - 00:53:210 - too to follow that same logic? It'd be nicer to play imo
  01:50:903 (1,1) - These slightly touch and itz visible in game and triggered
  01:53:403 (2,3) - Blahblabhblanketz
  01:57:057 (1,1,2,3,1,1,2,3,1,1,2,3) - How about increasing spacing per pattern here to add emphasis to increasing pressure/build and pitch rising?
  01:59:364 (1,1,2) - I can NOT IGNORE that 5 note stream u didnt map right here, simply cant, itz way too obviouss
  02:20:807 (4) - Doeznt feel wubby or special enough how about this:
  
  Idea

  
  Or anything thatz wubby or special
  02:29:749 (2,3) - alblakblkblanketz
  03:30:710 (2) - Kinda disagree with this being a slider cuz second ssound has higher pitch, i see you increassed the volume, but it doesnt feel right to tap, likewise, 03:30:903 - doeznt need a jump either, so how about a sstacked or low-spaced triple?
  05:22:441 (3,4) - 05:23:980 (3,4) - mapped to extra 1/4 sound which iz cool, 05:21:191 - so why miss thiz one out? Mistake?
  05:57:057 (1,2,1) - Is it just me or is this unusually low spaced (05:57:441 (2,1) - that part)

Monstrata wrote:

[diff name]

00:40:903 (1) - Use another color here? Purple really blends in with the storyboard here. ok
00:55:422 (3) - Is this supposed to be spaced like that? Just wonder, cuz it looked misplaced. yaeh made it even
01:14:749 (3) - Sorry, I can't support this xP. Even though it makes sense with the song.
01:20:903 (1) - This one too. But this one's at least a bit better since it's not inside a loop. Basically, If this was posted on the BN discussion forum, I can see people potentially considering this acceptable, but the one before, I can't. I'll try to make them less...questionable, i guess.
02:15:133 (5) - NC here, or remove it from 02:14:172 (1) - for consistency between patterns.,
02:27:826 (1,2) - Blanket's off.
02:32:633 (2,3,4) - The overlaps with the slider-borders really make this pattern look unpolished. I mean, if it bothers you that much and I can't scream *aesthetics* like you can, then fine.
02:35:903 (2,3) - Blanket here is off too.
02:41:287 (4) - Spacing's off.
02:46:287 (1) - Try and use the approach circle to give the slider-head section a better blanket.

Blanket itself basically

02:52:826 (2,3,4) - This spacing bugs me... as does 02:54:364 (2) - (though less obvious).
03:34:236 (1) - Snapping to 03:34:268 - sounds better... but tbh I'd just leave it out because it doesn't have any rhythmic value...
03:35:326 (1) - This whole section and onward is like, sliderbreak-heaven cuz of that slidertick right at the end of every slider xP. It's really bad for stuff like 03:44:172 (1,2) - where the movement you want to go to isn't the same movement as the sliderball, which causes the player to break more easily. If you want to keep these jumps, at least have the slider-shape match the flow in this section. Don't consider slider-leniency on sliders with a tick really near the slider-end because player's won't be able to use slider-leniency like they want to.
04:05:518 (1,2,3) - Is this uneven spacing intentional? xd why xd, why aren't the others 04:07:441 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - spaced like that then? I imagine it could have been for the pitch change or something.
05:20:133 (1,2,3,4) - The windup doesn't work well here when your spacing and jumps progressively decrease before picking up in the later combos...
05:45:326 (1) - xdd blanket. Use more nodes.

Okay good luck!

grumd wrote:

ruined the sliders thanks :^)

honestly, they are fucking ugly now

why?

can you please find the text documents i sent you earlier and bring my sliders back to normal?

1. Your MP3 quality could be better, here's a 192kbps version. (Taken from Quite Cynical's mapset.)

1. 00:13:594 (1) - Pls snap.
2. 00:51:672 (4) - 00:53:210 (3) - I feel like these circles should be emphasized since they land where that little chord hits in the music and because you emphasized it at 00:37:826 (3) - 00:43:980 (1) - 00:50:133 (3) - and 00:54:749 (1) -
3. Topic about sliders like - 01:14:749 (3) - 01:20:903 (3) - 01:27:057 (3) -have been raised in the beatmap management forums and I just want to give my opinion on them.
   
   First of all, sliders like these aren't new, I'm assuming the issue is that the "glitched" part of it is not visible and can supposedly lead to sliderbreaks.
   
   Here's the thing though, the slider follow circle area is so massive that even if i sit at the edge of the sliderball the entire time, and keep a constant speed through the glitched part, i still survive without any sliderbreaks.
   
   Also, once a player notices that the slider does weird shit on the first one, they'll be prepared for the next two, so I really don't see the issue in them in terms of playability.
   
   Moving on,
   
   
4. 01:32:057 (1,2,3) - I feel like this whole pattern should be moved a bit further from six, it helps with readability and emphasis imo.
5. 01:32:633 (1) - Some hitsounding here to emphasize the "loudening" (xd) of the song would be nice.
6. 01:53:595 (3) - Move this to 287|209? 2 and 4 are a little too close for comfort imo and I think that this looks much nicer.
7. 01:53:980 (1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1) - why so many NC's
8. 02:15:326 (2) - Comparing this to 02:15:133 (1) - , I feel like 2 would make much more sense as 2 circles, since the 2 distinct drum hits that are masked by the wub sound on 1 are much more audible on 2, due to the lack of the wub sound of course.
9. 02:28:307 (2) - Unsnapped?
10. 02:29:749 (2) - Aaaa pls find a way to compliment that hit on the blue tick, maybe shorten by a tick, move it so it starts on the blue tick, and add a circle to the white tick?
11. 02:30:566 (1) - Something really gimmicky you can do here is making this a double, with a circle on the white tick as well. It'll compliment a super quiet beat and help with accuracy.
12. 02:33:210 (4,5) - It'd make for a good triple if you put a circle in between these to compliment the hit inbetween them.
13. 02:35:903 (2) - Same as what I said above about the hit on the blue tick, I may have missed other times this happened so if you know of any others please fix them as well.
14. 02:36:720 (1) - Same as what I said above about the double.
15. 02:36:720 (1,1,2) - I'm a big fan of this.
16. 02:42:057 (2) - Same as what I said above about the hit on the blue tick.
17. 02:42:874 (1) - Same as the double lol, I'm gonna stop listing these, if you find other places with these same placements, pls adjust them accordingly.
18. 02:45:518 (4,5) - You should know. xd
19. 03:04:172 (4,5,6) - Is there a reason why the spacing isn't consistent? If not pls fix.
20. 05:57:057 (1,2) - I don't understand what you're trying to compliment with 2, but it's pretty awkward. I'd just delete 2 and if there's actually something there, it's so negligible that it should just be complimented by the sliderend. I hear what you're trying to hit at 05:58:210 (1,2) - and the rest though.
21. 07:10:518 (1,1) - This is definitely my personal opinion but I feel like the ending would be a lot more ominous if you ended with the sliderend and not a circle, I don't know why though lol it just works.
22. There might be more unsnapped sliders beware, I'll edit this post if I run into more.

Spaghetti wrote:

[General]

1. Your MP3 quality could be better, here's a 192kbps version. (Taken from Quite Cynical's mapset.) This is an upscaled mp3.

[lamentations]

1. 00:13:594 (1) - Pls snap. Pls yes
2. 00:51:672 (4) - 00:53:210 (3) - I feel like these circles should be emphasized since they land where that little chord hits in the music and because you emphasized it at 00:37:826 (3) - 00:43:980 (1) - 00:50:133 (3) - and 00:54:749 (1) - The clicks are following two different patterns. While the music does indeed have the same instrument at those points, it is much weaker.
3. Topic about sliders like - 01:14:749 (3) - 01:20:903 (3) - 01:27:057 (3) -have been raised in the beatmap management forums and I just want to give my opinion on them.
   
   First of all, sliders like these aren't new (I know they're not), I'm assuming the issue is that the "glitched" part of it is not visible and can supposedly lead to sliderbreaks.
   
   Here's the thing though, the slider follow circle area is so massive that even if i sit at the edge of the sliderball the entire time, and keep a constant speed through the glitched part, i still survive without any sliderbreaks.
   
   Also, once a player notices that the slider does weird shit on the first one, they'll be prepared for the next two, so I really don't see the issue in them in terms of playability.
   
   The thing is, these sliders have two big functions to them.
   
   They are Unpredictable on first playthrough. This is penchantly unrankable and always has been. I've never been a fan of this rule. It's inane and boring and needlessly limiting to force mappers to assume that players will only play a map once. But on the other hand, maps shouldn't need to be memorized to be played. This is barely worth considering, in my eyes: They are the only 3 super-long bass sliders and every one of them has a glitch bit near the end. It's extremely predictable on secondary playthroughs because they are incredibly memorable. Out of all the plays, I'm sure that players remember these three sliders alongside the kiai and wub sections as the only memorable parts of the map. Nobody remembers the other bits quite as clearly - "that weird jumpy bit before the chorus?" for example.
   
   On the other hand, they are Completely playable on their first playthrough. They are designed to be a bit surprising, but no player that is not currently having a spontaneous seizure is going to sliderbreak on them, in which case they have bigger issues to deal with.
   
   
   Due to both of these factors, I'm of the opinion that fuck it, they're cool, they're fine. They shouldn't set a precedent and they shouldn't give mappers leave to copy it "because shiirn did it why can't i?". There are extenuating factors that outweigh the cons here, to me.
   
   
   
   Moving on,
   
   
4. 01:32:057 (1,2,3) - I feel like this whole pattern should be moved a bit further from six, it helps with readability and emphasis imo. Disagree. Its closeness to 6 helps emphasize how big the spacing jump is for 1,2,3.
5. 01:32:633 (1) - Some hitsounding here to emphasize the "loudening" (xd) of the song would be nice. ehhhhhh
6. 01:53:595 (3) - Move this to 287|209? 2 and 4 are a little too close for comfort imo and I think that this looks much nicer. sure why not, not exactly where you said because no
7. 01:53:980 (1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1) - why so many NC's why not
8. 02:15:326 (2) - Comparing this to 02:15:133 (1) - , I feel like 2 would make much more sense as 2 circles, since the 2 distinct drum hits that are masked by the wub sound on 1 are much more audible on 2, due to the lack of the wub sound of course. Disagree again. The 1/4 sliders here actually disconnect the drums from the player. I know it's a weird concept, but even when I'm mapping the drums I don't want the drums to be the focus.
9. 02:28:307 (2) - Unsnapped? what the fuck even is this game
10. 02:29:749 (2) - Aaaa pls find a way to compliment that hit on the blue tick, maybe shorten by a tick, move it so it starts on the blue tick, and add a circle to the white tick? NOT FOLLOWING THE DRUMS FUCK THE DRUMS LALALALALALAA
11. 02:30:566 (1) - Something really gimmicky you can do here is making this a double, with a circle on the white tick as well. It'll compliment a super quiet beat and help with accuracy. Fuck gimmicking this. There is no beat on the white tick. And I'm not going to force one.
12. 02:33:210 (4,5) - It'd make for a good triple if you put a circle in between these to compliment the hit inbetween them. Again, not following the god damn drums >.<
13. 02:35:903 (2) - Same as what I said above about the hit on the blue tick, I may have missed other times this happened so if you know of any others please fix them as well. Ain't shit to fix mate! They're staying the way they are.
14. 02:36:720 (1) - Same as what I said above about the double. Ain't shit to fix mate! They're staying the way they are.
15. 02:36:720 (1,1,2) - I'm a big fan of this. Hi a big fan of this i'm dad
16. 02:42:057 (2) - Same as what I said above about the hit on the blue tick. I'm going to ignore these from now on.
17. 02:42:874 (1) - Same as the double lol, I'm gonna stop listing these, if you find other places with these same placements, pls adjust them accordingly.
18. 02:45:518 (4,5) - You should know. xd
19. 03:04:172 (4,5,6) - Is there a reason why the spacing isn't consistent? If not pls fix. To have 5 be directly behind 2 and still have increased movement. The exact spacing is fine, it increases over time and curves interestingly.
20. 05:57:057 (1,2) - I don't understand what you're trying to compliment with 2, but it's pretty awkward. I'd just delete 2 and if there's actually something there, it's so negligible that it should just be complimented by the sliderend. I hear what you're trying to hit at 05:58:210 (1,2) - and the rest though. Those 2s are the entire reason the chorus is the chorus. If you can hear the second one and beyond, it should be obvious why the first one is this way even if it's a little softer. The chorus has more advanced and swingy slider movement and the addition of those 2s to make the rhythm even more complex. It's a perfect fit for the kiai.
21. 07:10:518 (1,1) - This is definitely my personal opinion but I feel like the ending would be a lot more ominous if you ended with the sliderend and not a circle, I don't know why though lol it just works. You know what? Fuck it sure, I was getting whiny bitch complaints that the suddenly extremely slow slider was unreadable anyway. This fixes all the issues.
22. There might be more unsnapped sliders beware, I'll edit this post if I run into more.

Let me know if there's anything I can improve modding-wise, going for BN of course.
Nice map, GL o/

Spaghetti wrote:

tldr particles ingame that go offscreen get clipped, whereas the ones in the editor dont, which causes major differences in sb load between the two

to check sb load ingame use the testing window and look at the top left

fieryrage wrote:

so wait why are there brackets around the tags

Monstrata wrote:

03:35:326 (1,2) - With the way you arranged them, as well as the way those green lines are placed in timeline, it really looks like you intended for them to be 1/4 longer, ending at 03:36:191 - and 03:37:153 - . They were originally ending on the blue ticks, but this added an additional slidertick that was invisible and caused players to break very often. I shortened the sliders and never carried over the 5% volume slider endings because A) I wasn't the one who 'silenced' them, and I prefer slider endings to have volume levels equal to their start (exceptions apply, obviously) and then B) forgot to outright delete the green ticks. It'd make the entire section 25%, but oh well.
03:39:941 (4) - This sounds too early... assuming you're following the woodwind instrument. Might need an offset shift here... IF you'll look at sakurabursts handy documentation and construction guide he did on this very song (xilver has a link in his map, i'm a bit busy to link it here), you'll see that he didn't actually use any offset changes. This might be a little bit off, but it's a very lenient slider head.

Side wrote:

sorry shiirn but as soon as I got to the first buzzy slider my PC automatically deleted system32, sent the downandup virus through all my wireless devices connected to my home network and changed my wallpapers to a tiled 320x320 free harambe picture. I feel these instances are related to that slider thus this map should be unranked :^)

All rules are exactly that: RULES. They are NOT guidelines and may NOT be broken under ANY circumstance.

sahuang wrote:

The sliders that change sv....they are quite controversial tbh

All rules are exactly that: RULES. They are NOT guidelines and may NOT be broken under ANY circumstance.

Ranking Criteria wrote:

All rules are exactly that: RULES. They are NOT guidelines and may NOT be broken under ANY circumstance.

Proposed RC wrote:

Every slider must have a clear and visible path to follow from start to end. Sliders which overlap themselves in a way that makes any section unreadable or ambiguous cannot be used, such as burai sliders and hold sliders without straightforward slider borders. Perfectly overlapping slider bodies must give enough time to fully read each slider’s path.

Ascendance wrote:

Why would you want to break the rules anyways for any other reason to be an incompetent edgelord? You aren't a god, Shiirn. It's about time you got brought back down to Earth like the rest of us and realize that you have to follow the same rules as the rest of us. No exceptions.

Ascendance wrote:

Why would you want to break the rules anyways for any other reason to be an incompetent edgelord? You aren't a god, Shiirn. It's about time you got brought back down to Earth like the rest of us and realize that you have to follow the same rules as the rest of us. No exceptions.

Ascendance wrote:

Won't say anything more then. Good luck to the 3 nominators that you've just plunged into a terrible situation.

Xexxar wrote:

Ascendance wrote:

Won't say anything more then. Good luck to the 3 nominators that you've just plunged into a terrible situation.

R.I.P. Xexxar: 2016-2016

Ascendance wrote:

Including QATs? I'm not so sure about that one The point is you've NOMINATED AN UNRANKABLE MAP, regardless of how Shiirn wants to put it, the map is unrankable. It's against the rules of the BNG and I'm sure you're 100% aware of that, since you read those rules, right?

Stjpa wrote:

Monstrata used a wiggle in Hey kids!! too to slow down a slider even though it's against the RC, isn't it?

Anxient wrote:

methinks that the issue here isnt about the wiggle sliders. i think its because that some sliders such as this one forcibly slows down the slider. isnt that the unrankable one?

for convenience, i believe that this slider is the one stjpa is talking about.

Stjpa wrote:

Monstrata used a wiggle in Hey kids!! too to slow down a slider even though it's against the RC, isn't it?

But anyway, let's wait for more opinions or a QAT who doesn't want this map to be pushed forward.

Guidelines wrote:

Guidelines are important and should be followed in most maps. However, they are NOT rules, so they may be broken in special cases. If you want to break a guideline, ask yourself this: Does what I'm about to do make sense? Is it more fun to play like this compared to sticking to the guidelines? If you answer yes to both these questions, then it is probably okay.