MugiwaraSekai wrote:

hype is real

Spork Lover wrote:

Holy shit, I didn't know this got bubbled :O Good luck my friend!

Stjpa wrote:

Love this song, I'll try to get to it in the next days~

Ayyri wrote:

Really nice song. <3

Stjpa wrote:

The map doesn't even have enough drain time to go as an approval map. I did the math and got around 298.3 seconds for the drain time, I asked some people about it and they got the same. So uh, call me when you mapped some more seconds, I guess. But sadly I have to pop the bubbles as it's a highly unrankable thing. Ayyri might take a look on the map as she likes the song etc.

1. 00:24:810 (2,2) - So you just used the same patterning from the previous section which is fine, but for some reason you have a lot lower distance from the previous objects which makes it feel kind of weird. Having the structure of a build-up would be cooler.
2. 00:36:010 (2) - For all objects with that sound I suggest to use different spacing related to the piano's strength.
3. 00:57:010 (5,6,7) - Personally I dislike the flow here. Having (5) placed a bit lower would be neat with having an equal distance to each 3 objects. But the equal thingy isn't that important if you want a better emphasis on the burst.
4. 01:09:410 (2,3,4) - The distance doesn't really show the snapping of these objects. For a comparison look at these 01:06:210 (2,3,5,6) . They pretty much have the distance but different snapping.
5. 01:16:610 (3,1) - 01:19:810 (6,1) - Similar to the point above. Especially for the second one, how is someone supposed to know that they are still 3/4 with such a huge gap?
6. 01:37:397 (2,3) - Why do you emphasize them less than 01:37:959 (5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12) ? Also a NC on (12) would be pretty cool for the vocals, but I don't mind if you don't wanna do that.
7. 01:39:928 (1,2) - Aesthetic-wise this is pretty outstanding to the other patterns in the whole map, I kinda dislike it.
8. 01:43:678 (3,4,5,6,7) - Are you sure that you don't wanna change the flow? There are no vocals at all on (3), so using a linear flow is counter-intuitive in this case. And the following objects have strong vocals on them that more deserve an acute flow rather than linear.
9. 01:54:741 (1,2,3,4) - I find it confusing that you have a NC here for the special sound here but don't use one 00:17:410 (4) - here?
10. 02:01:678 (2,3) - Imo way too close together compared to 02:02:053 (3,4,5) .
11. 02:08:991 (2) - How about an emphasis here as the vocals start here again?
12. 02:27:928 (1,2) - 02:28:678 (3,4) - For what reason are you having anti-jumps here when the whole map is pretty jumpy and don't have anything special to emphasize here?
13. 02:30:366 (6) - It would make more sense if you would start the NC spam here because the sound actually starts here. And with that change you probably need to choose a different jump pattern because having that pattern repeat for one and a half measures would be pretty boring and awkward.
14. 02:43:116 (1,2,3,4,5) - (1) is way less audible than (2) so having a bigger spacing from (1) to (2) than (2) to (3,4,5) is really counter-intuitive. You might wanna fix the spacing between all all the pattern in this triplet section then because some are way too small and deserve more emphasis.
15. 05:01:638 (2,3,4) - And here you have 1/2 gaps that have the spacing of 1/4. ;_;

Stjpa wrote:

alright

[Timing]
I asked Bonsai about it and he said that +6 for the second offset and +3 for the last offset would fit better, Also, for the section 03:59:056 - here it's better to double the BPM since kicks are supposed to be on white ticks rather than red ticks. And then again, doubling the BPM of the previous offset would be better as well because it's pretty similar and then the bell sounds would also be on downbeats, which definitely makes more sense than the current. All fixed

[Diff]

1. 00:24:810 (2,2) - So you just used the same patterning from the previous section which is fine, but for some reason you have a lot lower distance from the previous objects which makes it feel kind of weird. Having the structure of a build-up would be cooler. The actual transition from 00:24:210 (1,2) - and 00:25:810 (1,2) - fits quite well for me. tbh i Don't feel it weird to play D:
2. 00:36:010 (2) - For all objects with that sound I suggest to use different spacing related to the piano's strength. I guess i tried xd
3. 00:57:010 (5,6,7) - Personally I dislike the flow here. Having (5) placed a bit lower would be neat with having an equal distance to each 3 objects. But the equal thingy isn't that important if you want a better emphasis on the burst. I like how the flow goes from down to top and then down, creates like a zig-zag flows which i honestly like
4. 01:09:410 (2,3,4) - The distance doesn't really show the snapping of these objects. For a comparison look at these 01:06:210 (2,3,5,6) . They pretty much have the distance but different snapping. I distanced them a bit, idk if that's what you meant, but however i don't see any troubles here :p
5. 01:16:610 (3,1) - 01:19:810 (6,1) - Similar to the point above. Especially for the second one, how is someone supposed to know that they are still 3/4 with such a huge gap? You're right, fixed
6. 01:37:397 (2,3) - Why do you emphasize them less than 01:37:959 (5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12) ? Also a NC on (12) would be pretty cool for the vocals, but I don't mind if you don't wanna do that. I basically wanted to stack them, but it just doesn't feel/look good for me. However I don't feel like it less emphasized, it's just a stack with some little space i guess, i like it :p
7. 01:39:928 (1,2) - Aesthetic-wise this is pretty outstanding to the other patterns in the whole map, I kinda dislike it. did a blanket instead
8. 01:43:678 (3,4,5,6,7) - Are you sure that you don't wanna change the flow? There are no vocals at all on (3), so using a linear flow is counter-intuitive in this case. And the following objects have strong vocals on them that more deserve an acute flow rather than linear. I think the build-up for the next part (01:44:428 (8,9,1) - ) is quite good since it gaves more emphasis to the chorus i guess, idk I like the actual rhythm so I don't want to change it
9. 01:54:741 (1,2,3,4) - I find it confusing that you have a NC here for the special sound here but don't use one 00:17:410 (4) - here? Basically because for the first it just doesn't give too much emphasis in order to NC it, also because of the actual rhythm with those triplets, I think it would be weird to nc just one triplet witch such a low music track
10. 02:01:678 (2,3) - Imo way too close together compared to 02:02:053 (3,4,5) . I reduced them a bit, however I think that for an overall structure, the spacing fits well since it all have almost the same spacing and it doesn't play bad imo
11. 02:08:991 (2) - How about an emphasis here as the vocals start here again? sure! i guess now it's better
12. 02:27:928 (1,2) - 02:28:678 (3,4) - For what reason are you having anti-jumps here when the whole map is pretty jumpy and don't have anything special to emphasize here? I guess because the vocals are changing quite a bit and wanted to give some kind of change in the rhythm/pattern which i personally find cool to play
13. 02:30:366 (6) - It would make more sense if you would start the NC spam here because the sound actually starts here. And with that change you probably need to choose a different jump pattern because having that pattern repeat for one and a half measures would be pretty boring and awkward.Added the NC but kept the jumpy pattern because i don't find it becomes boring and awkward to play just by changing some colors to it, I really like this pattern for such a strong section
14. 02:43:116 (1,2,3,4,5) - (1) is way less audible than (2) so having a bigger spacing from (1) to (2) than (2) to (3,4,5) is really counter-intuitive. You might wanna fix the spacing between all all the pattern in this triplet section then because some are way too small and deserve more emphasis. I kinda get your point, but I think giving the distance for 02:43:116 (1,2) - this sections for example fits quite good because the actual strong beat is on 02:43:303 (2) - so yeah i don't see a problem. However the point where it's different could be 02:43:678 (5,6) - this where i don't give the same distance for the emphasis, but again, if I change that I would mess all the circle flow i'm trying to do here.
15. 05:01:638 (2,3,4) - And here you have 1/2 gaps that have the spacing of 1/4. ;_; I think now it has better spacing

Natsu wrote:

Yup

IRC

2016-09-20 20:25 iYiyo: ACTION is listening to [https://osu.ppy.sh/b/766560 YUZU - Hyouri Ittai]
2016-09-20 20:28 Natsu: okay, esperame un momento, solo termino de modear esta easy
2016-09-20 20:28 iYiyo: okay c:
2016-09-20 20:35 Natsu: tenes algún enlace oficial para esta metadata?
2016-09-20 20:35 iYiyo: está en la descripción
2016-09-20 20:35 iYiyo: por kwan
2016-09-20 20:48 Natsu: estas?
2016-09-20 20:48 iYiyo: sip
2016-09-20 20:49 Natsu: 00:30:810 (2,3,4,5,6,7,8) -  no creo que las claps en los cuerpos de estos sliders sea intencional
2016-09-20 20:49 Natsu: o si?
2016-09-20 20:50 iYiyo: oh
2016-09-20 20:50 iYiyo: en los cuerpos
2016-09-20 20:50 Natsu: de aqui 00:32:210 (1) -  hasta 00:44:810 (4) - deberias de usar algunos whisltes, se siente bastante vacio sin hitsounds, ademas vos agregastes algunos a otra seccion similar como lo es 01:11:210 (2) -  
2016-09-20 20:51 Natsu: 01:10:610 (1) -  agrega whistle en la cabeza del slider?
2016-09-20 20:52 iYiyo: oki
2016-09-20 20:53 Natsu: 01:47:616 (1,3) -  estos estan apilados tan perfecto que causara algunos problemas, move 3 unos grids hacia la derecha
2016-09-20 20:53 Natsu: 01:54:366 (3) -  NC para ser consistente con 01:54:741 (1) -  
2016-09-20 20:54 iYiyo: encuentro que NC ahí no riia muy bien
2016-09-20 20:54 iYiyo: básicamente porque el cambio de sonido es en 01:54:741 -
2016-09-20 20:54 iYiyo: ahí encuentro que es más worth agregarle NC
2016-09-20 20:54 Natsu: 04:40:453 (1,3) -  esto esta tambien perfectamente apilado >:
2016-09-20 20:56 iYiyo: 03:08:616 (1,3) - también desapilé este
2016-09-20 20:56 iYiyo: btw~
2016-09-20 20:56 Natsu: nice
2016-09-20 20:56 Natsu: avisame cuando este listo

Stjpa wrote:

That was fast. Congratz!

Hazu- wrote:

o: Felicidades~

iWinnie wrote:

Kocari once said it was good. HE SAID SO FOLKS Ayy Good Shit

CSLM wrote:

Really nice!
gratz on your first map ranked

pitsty wrote:

congratz!
nice map