William K wrote:

Hi, from my queue :V I dunno I'll get this song *pfft*

[MrSergio's Insane]

1. 00:09:617 (4,5) - How about CTRL+G-ing these two notes to make 00:09:777 (5) - emphasized better with a better flow? I feel like the most important note there is 00:09:936 (1) - and not 00:09:777 (5) - , hence the jump like that
2. 00:20:787 (3,1,2,3) - Stacking 00:21:106 (1,2,3) - under 00:20:787 (3) - would be weird imo. Consider tidying this stack. I canàt really undesrtand "how" tho. A screen may help here
3. 01:20:787 (4,5,6) - This seems to have a pretty big spacing after a triplet, how about making 01:20:787 (4,5,6) - closer to 01:20:628 (3) - to make it easier and emphasize 01:21:266 (7) - properly with a very high spacing? XD The spacing on (7) is like any other spacing I used before in the kiai, which is fine imo. As to the distance between the 2 triplets I find it fine too, due to overall emphasis on the kiai part and the previous patterns (it is also a circular flow, which is easier to follow)
4. 00:17:436 (6) - I think the spacing here is a bit too high for a part that's calm. Try lowering the spacing here, it's higher than kiai part. Average spacing is around x1.80-x2.00 so using a jump with x2.80 is still good imo, otherwise I can't put emphasis properly. (A suggestion here may help once again)

Sorry I can't mod much xd. That's the problems I found. How about AR 9.2? XD The gap between Voli's Extra and Light Insane AR-wise is perfect for a AR9 Insane imo. It is also an Insane to begin with, I don't plan on altering my settings so easily unless strongly supported by playability issues.

HighTec wrote:

ey look its ur dad map!
ill actualy mod diz in liek normal english becus ohterwize itwu d becom unredable i gues lol ya srure

hardest dad diff
00:07:462 (13,1) - tbh i don't get the stream jump at all, i hear nothing in the song making a sound strongly enough to enforce a jump yea. if you wanna keep the jump then i still wanna ask you if you wanna reduce the spacing a little, it catches me offguard all the time and i'd love to not sliderbreak on the slider :^> Yes, this is to sliderbreak pp femrmers.
00:15:840 (1,2) - i see that there is a SV increase in this part to emphasis the vocals, but then if you do that could you also noticeably change the spacing between them? that would make a lot more sense to me tbh. also yes i see no difference in the spacing between 00:15:521 (7,1) - and 00:15:840 (1,2) - Well, what do you exactly want me to change on this part? You just explained the thing yourself for me lol xddd
00:22:542 (4,6) - could you avoid this overlap or make it look better? right now the borders just overlapping is a pain to watch xd Ahh, that's probably intentional. I like overlapping especially on sliders' heads or similar to this. It didn't really hurt visiblity or structure tbh.
00:24:138 (1,4) - lOL perfect stack (1)tail and (4)head okthanks lol okay, fixed the tiny spacings as well kthnx
00:40:734 (5,6,7) - due to the hitsounds it would be like way cooler to have bigger jumps here, because emphasis baby \o/ ... okay
00:50:947 (1) - R I P buildup jumps in here, so much 1/2 beats skipped. consider changing this !! Isn't 3.4x spacing enough already? I didn't want to increase the spacing and go over ^4x because of the CS5.5, which would be a little tricky to aim though.
01:02:436 (7) - can you put a NC here? would make the reading easier as it indicates the start of the new pattern I've never added an NC or break two measures of each track of combo. I've also done similar to what you said alike 00:57:330 (7) - or 00:57:330 (7) - . So yeah.
01:06:904 (4,8) - not perfect stacked,,, TIRGRERD It's barely visible because it's quite far and AR9. So I'm considering this as an intended overlap.
01:15:202 (5) - NC here again for the pattern, indicates the start of the 1/4 beat snapping section \o/ See above \o/

remind me to mod voli's diff tomorrow but i needa get some sleep now Oookay

Revialink wrote:

Hi!~ NM from my queue!~

Easy

1. 00:13:925 (1) - make it similar 00:15:202 (2)
2. 00:33:074 (3,3) - this sliders can looks better
3. 00:36:904 (1,2) - ugly pattern
4. 00:46:798 (3) - x:320 y:316 and Ctrl + G

Normal

1. 00:27:968 (3,1) - overlap they
2. 00:36:585 (6) - x:188 y:88
3. 00:43:287 (4) - x:168 y:360
4. 00:58:287 (4) - x:208 y:232
5. 01:12:011 (2,3) - this pattern looks not beautiful
6. 01:27:170 (2) - x:152 y:184

Hard

1. 00:12:330 (4,5) - x:412 y:116
2. 00:34:830 (3,5) - overlap they

Good Luck!~

Revialink wrote:

Revialink wrote:

Hi!~ NM from my queue!~

Easy

1. 00:13:925 (1) - make it similar 00:15:202 (2) Well, for symmetry alright... ;/
2. 00:33:074 (3,3) - this sliders can looks better I wouldn't want to ruin a bit of the patterning here, you could've noticed the symmetry here somehow. I think this should not be an aesthetically problem.
3. 00:36:904 (1,2) - ugly pattern Uhmm, what makes it ugly though? ;-;
4. 00:46:798 (3) - x:320 y:316 and Ctrl + G Hmm that Ctrl + G makes the spacing a little bigger, so I've just redone the slider's placement~

Normal

1. 00:27:968 (3,1) - overlap they Uhmm, it is an intentional overlap... What do you actually mean here?
2. 00:36:585 (6) - x:188 y:88 The placement here isn't pretty bad at all, as you could notice selecting this circle and check out the spacing over top right of the editor. This also counts on other mods below, because I didn't want to repeat my reasonings.
3. 00:43:287 (4) - x:168 y:360
4. 00:58:287 (4) - x:208 y:232
5. 01:12:011 (2,3) - this pattern looks not beautiful How can I improve it then? I'm so desperate for explanations ;-;
6. 01:27:170 (2) - x:152 y:184 Well that, yeah.

Hard

1. 00:12:330 (4,5) - x:412 y:116 Probably the same thing as on the Normal diff, but the patterning would look pretty odd imo.
2. 00:34:830 (3,5) - overlap they I already did.. ;/ I don't get you with this honestly.

Good Luck!~

C00L wrote:

\:D/

Cerulean Veyron wrote:

Thanks, Ravia!

dad

Revialink wrote:

Cerulean Veyron wrote:

Thanks, Ravia!

Ravia
xddddd

1. 00:30:840 - soft-clap
2. 01:21:585 - soft-finish can be much more fit here!

1. 00:03:394 (1) - listening the song, you can put finish here.
2. 00:31:160 (4) - Additions : Soft, listen the song carefully~
3. 00:31:479 (5,6) - Additions : Auto, listen the song
4. 01:21:585 (1) - soft-finish can be much more fit here!
5. 01:26:851 - remove finish / add clap

1. 01:24:617 (3,4,5,6,7) - considering the melody of the song, try this rhythm.
   
   image

   

1. 00:03:394 (1) - listening the song, you can put finish here.
2. 00:31:479 (7) - drum-clap?
3. 01:17:117 - add finish
4. 01:21:585 (1) - soft-finish can be much more fit here!
5. 01:26:851 - remove finish / add clap

1. 00:03:394 (1) - listening the song, you can put finish here.
2. 00:08:500 (8) - soft-clap on the head and tail.
3. 00:08:819 (1) - then, remove clap here.
4. 00:09:138 - soft-clap
5. 00:09:298 - remove clap
6. 00:46:957 (10) - soft-clap
7. 01:17:117 - you can add finish here.
8. 01:21:106 - remove clap and add finish? just my preference
9. 01:21:585 (1) - soft-finish can be much more fit here!
10. 01:26:851 (2) - remove finish / add clap

1. 00:03:394 (1) - listening the song, you can put finish here.
2. 00:08:500 (11,12,13,14) - soft-clap sounds better here imo. listening the song, decrescendo hitsound isn't fit for the song.
3. 01:21:585 (1) - soft-finish!
4. 01:26:851 - / 01:27:011 (2) - set drum-clap(finish), it will fit for the song much better I think.

1. 00:03:394 (1) - listening the song, you can put finish here.
2. 00:08:500 (5,6,7,8) - I feel something missing for this empty hitsounding. try to put soft-clap on all of these.
3. 00:31:319 (2) - remove finish / add clap
4. 01:17:117 - add finish

1. 00:03:394 - listening the song, you can put finish here.
2. 01:12:649 (1,5) - set soft-clap (then, remove finish). listening the song, this pattern is correct.
3. 01:13:606 - ^
4. 01:26:851 - remove finish / add clap. it will be better considering your shape of 01:26:851 (3,4) - and your hitsounding style.

1. 00:03:394 - listening the song, you can put finish here.
2. 00:08:500 (4,5) - add soft-clap on each head and tail? same reason as Light Insane
3. 00:38:819 - / 00:39:138 - you can put finish on these
4. 00:36:266 (9,10) - add soft-whistle
5. 01:03:074 - missing clap
6. 01:13:606 (7) - set soft-clap sounds much better imo. strong sound rings there on the song.
7. 01:21:585 (1) - soft-finish!
8. 01:26:771 (2,3,4) - set drum-clap(finish), it will fit for the song much better I think.

1. 00:47:037 - add note, considering drum pattern of the song

thzz wrote:

hi~
from my Hitsound mod queue!
I came here just for checking hitsounding.

[Easy]

1. 00:30:840 - soft-clap Applied
2. 01:21:585 - soft-finish can be much more fit here! Well, the soft finish sound is a little inaudible. I increased volume but still inaudible though.

[Normal]

1. 00:03:394 (1) - listening the song, you can put finish here. Applied
2. 00:31:160 (4) - Additions : Soft, listen the song carefully~ There's already one on 00:31:479 (5) - , so I think overdoing it from drum clap to that is a bit powerless on this circle. Because yeah, there is a drum on the song here tbh.
3. 00:31:479 (5,6) - Additions : Auto, listen the song Nearly the same as above.
4. 01:21:585 (1) - soft-finish can be much more fit here! Same reason as previous diff.
5. 01:26:851 - remove finish / add clap Applied

suggestions not about hitsounding

1. 01:24:617 (3,4,5,6,7) - considering the melody of the song, try this rhythm. so, basically Ctrl+G (4) (5) and (6)? ..Oh well, alright.
   
   image

   

[Advanced]

1. 00:03:394 (1) - listening the song, you can put finish here. Applied
2. 00:31:479 (7) - drum-clap? Applied, nice catch.
3. 01:17:117 - add finish I don't think it's a good idea. Another finish on this downbeat would be too dense imo.
4. 01:21:585 (1) - soft-finish can be much more fit here! Same thing.
5. 01:26:851 - remove finish / add clap Applied

[Hard]

1. 00:03:394 (1) - listening the song, you can put finish here. Applied
2. 00:08:500 (8) - soft-clap on the head and tail. Applied only on head.
3. 00:08:819 (1) - then, remove clap here.^
4. 00:09:138 - soft-clap I think a whistle here should be enough for the sounding. The soft-clap wouldn't be needed here.
5. 00:09:298 - remove clap ^
6. 00:46:957 (10) - soft-clap Applied
7. 01:17:117 - you can add finish here. Same thing as previous.
8. 01:21:106 - remove clap and add finish? just my preference I probably only add finishes on cymbals and downbeats. But here, it doesn't really sound very suitable imo.
9. 01:21:585 (1) - soft-finish can be much more fit here! Same.
10. 01:26:851 (2) - remove finish / add clap Applied

[Light Insane]

1. 00:03:394 (1) - listening the song, you can put finish here. Applied
2. 00:08:500 (11,12,13,14) - soft-clap sounds better here imo. listening the song, decrescendo hitsound isn't fit for the song. Hmm added a few whistles for the stream
3. 01:21:585 (1) - soft-finish! a
4. 01:26:851 - / 01:27:011 (2) - set drum-clap(finish), it will fit for the song much better I think. Applied

[Cool!]

1. 00:03:394 - listening the song, you can put finish here. Applied
2. 00:08:500 (4,5) - add soft-clap on each head and tail? same reason as Light Insane Yeah, applied
3. 00:38:819 - / 00:39:138 - you can put finish on these I hear no cymbals on this one. And besides, the sound would be too loud and overused finishes imo.
4. 00:36:266 (9,10) - add soft-whistle Uhmm that'd sound pretty weird. I've used the soft whistle on this track following the percussion.
5. 01:03:074 - missing clap Applied, nice catch!
6. 01:13:606 (7) - set soft-clap sounds much better imo. strong sound rings there on the song. I believe the drum finishes gives more impact than the soft claps here. The music track nearly went high-pitched so somehow they'd really suit best imo.
7. 01:21:585 (1) - soft-finish! a
8. 01:26:771 (2,3,4) - set drum-clap(finish), it will fit for the song much better I think. Applied

suggestions not about hitsounding

1. 00:47:037 - add note, considering drum pattern of the song A little more challenging, sure!

okay, that's all. good hitsounding, so these are almost suggestions.
gl~

Cerulean Veyron wrote:

Cerulean Veyron wrote:

Cho Kyuhyun

Voli wrote:

ty for killing my eyes btw

Katyusha wrote:

Hey, from my Q, short and fast mod to help with some details

ADVANCED

00:13:766 - There should be a note here, also, there's a snare here and not only that, because of the intensity of the voice, a note would fit well. Yeah, I could literally hear that though. But I can tell that the background snares like these are pretty minor than vocals and percussion. I do like the idea, but I just want to give a few spaces for players to notice the emphasis in order not to overtake note density, and increase a tiny bit of SR.
00:15:840 - 1/2 slider here, makes sense because how intense is the voice you can use the tail for 00:16:000 - this beat instead of ignoring it. on and then the impact here 00:16:160 - is fine. Nearly the same reason as above but in my view of the slider tailing on that point, it's quite overdoing unlike the ones on Hard diff and above. They produce more intensity, but putting more intensity here might be probably be too much and breaks a bit consistency with the rest of the rhythm composition. So to keep a bit more space and equal for the difficulty spread, alike on the first two diffs.
00:23:819 - Wouldn't a 1/2 slider fit better here? Seeing what you're using as base for these 00:24:138 (1,2) - , it makes sense Here's where I started to mainstream some vocals. Almost the same reasoning as above.
00:34:830 - Seeing as you mapped this beat 00:34:191 - with a note, which is the same as 00:34:830 - , shouldn't be a note here? Well, here. Maybe yes, I could do that ;p
00:39:457 - Try to use the voice up with something like this? http://i.imgur.com/VMZYC3D.png . I mean, the current pattern is fine, but it feels kinda underwhelming especially when you do this 00:40:734 (5,6) - later on. Those cymbals you've mentioned sounds very much audible, it's hardly underrated. It totally deserves some clicks though so I probably made two 1/2 sliders in order to follow one of the intensive beats landed on track.

00:47:117 (1) - Don't stack, you keep the player in a constant semi circle movement with 00:44:564 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - , having a stop here feels kinda weird with all the movement build up to this note Alright, moved it somewhere on the left.

That's it for this diff, the rest is actually fine.

LIGHT INSANE

00:22:702 - Do not waste such intense voice in a simple slider, try Note Note 1/2 Slider jump to 00:23:819 (6) - , like http://i.imgur.com/19T6Jwj.png I would actually like to say, this track is (kinda) mostly followed on rhythm based by vocals. Like I said previously on the advanced diff, mainstreaming some vocals. I probably didn't like spamming too much 1/2 sliders/circles just for density and difficulty, it does follow great hits but it's unsuitable in my point of view.

00:27:968 (5) - Small flow change, rotate this more to 00:28:287 (6) - . http://i.imgur.com/bmax5r9.png Ahh that'd quite better imo!

00:36:747 - Note Same thing

00:50:947 - Don't you feel is a shame to NOT put jumps in the area where this slider are? tho I can imagine you did that in highest diff, is still feels underused. Ehh do you mean the spinner or the previous slider on this part? ._. If that it's for some consistency's spread and so on.

Not much to say, diff is already good

Good luck with the map!

(sorry if a timeline copypaste doesn't fit)

1. Clear!

1. 00:24:138 (1) - Remove NC
2. 00:33:074 (3) - Maybe you can make a other slider art since it's look bad
3. 00:35:628 (3) - ^
4. 00:36:904 (1,2) - How about if you're make it blanket?
5. 00:53:500 (1) - Should be stopped at 00:53:979 -, since in white tick not have a sound & vocal sound end in red tick so it's not suitable
6. 00:58:606 (1) - ^
7. 01:03:713 (1) - ^
8. 01:08:819 (1) - ^
9. 01:19:032 (1) - Remove NC
10. 01:26:691 (1) - Maybe you can make a other slider art since it's look bad

1. 00:08:181 (4) - I think this note it's not suitable with song, it's too hard for beginner player, and hitsound is really noisy
2. 00:52:962 (1) - ^ (only too hard for beginner player)
3. 01:02:596 (6,7,8) - I don't it's rankable or no, but i think it's not good too for beginner player
4. 01:08:181 (7) - ^
5. 01:13:287 (8) - ^
6. 01:13:925 (1,3) - I think it's look a bad stack

1. 00:27:330 (2,4) - I think it's look a bad stack
2. 00:35:628 (7,9) - ^ (in tail slider 9)
3. 00:38:181 (5,7) - ^ (in tail slider 7)
4. 00:41:851 (9,1) - Blanket
5. 00:45:521 (5,6) - The flow is too near!

1. 00:11:053 (1) - I don't feel like this rhythm
2. 01:03:714 (1,2) - Blanket
3. 01:13:287 (3,4) - I think it's too harder for insane diff
4. 01:20:947 (6,7) - ^

1. 01:11:372 (1,1) - Stack is not good in tail (slider 2)

1. 00:06:585 (2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,1,2,3) - Hitsound really noisy!
2. 00:52:862 (3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) - The flow is really ugly!

KittyAdventure wrote:

Sorry for late, Meow~

Legend:
Black: Not to Important
Red: Is Unrankable
Blue: If not change, I'm ask with other BN and QAT

[General]

1. Clear! yey

[Easy]

1. 00:24:138 (1) - Remove NC Why tho? NCs are measured on every two tracks.
2. 00:33:074 (3) - Maybe you can make a other slider art since it's look bad Alright then, since many are mentioning this kinda awful xd so yeah, made a curve at least.
3. 00:35:628 (3) - ^
4. 00:36:904 (1,2) - How about if you're make it blanket? Doesn't look possible for one imo, and besides I probably don't like blanketing a lot.
5. 00:53:500 (1) - Should be stopped at 00:53:979 -, since in white tick not have a sound & vocal sound end in red tick so it's not suitable That's a good point, but I actually prefer keeping things easier on this diff. So putting more 3/4 reverse sliders may be too complex for the easiest diff around. So I think this shouldn't be necessarily implemented.
6. 00:58:606 (1) - ^
7. 01:03:713 (1) - ^
8. 01:08:819 (1) - ^
9. 01:19:032 (1) - Remove NC Same thing here.
10. 01:26:691 (1) - Maybe you can make a other slider art since it's look bad Uhmm redone the slider position... I guess(?)

[Advanced]

1. 00:08:181 (4) - I think this note it's not suitable with song, it's too hard for beginner player, and hitsound is really noisy It does suit when you could actually hear the drums streaming up on this track. I'm confident it shouldn't be too hard or too easy, It's a diff between Normal and Hard.
2. 00:52:962 (1) - ^ (only too hard for beginner player)
3. 01:02:596 (6,7,8) - I don't it's rankable or no, but i think it's not good too for beginner player As explained before~
4. 01:08:181 (7) - ^
5. 01:13:287 (8) - ^
6. 01:13:925 (1,3) - I think it's look a bad stack This isn't a stack though, an overlap. It's probably not that bad in many modders' viewpoint. So I presume this is legitimately fine.

[Hard]

1. 00:27:330 (2,4) - I think it's look a bad stack Uhmm, the overlap? I didn't get what you really mean here, counts the ones below too.
2. 00:35:628 (7,9) - ^ (in tail slider 9)
3. 00:38:181 (5,7) - ^ (in tail slider 7)
4. 00:41:851 (9,1) - Blanket The same thing as before for blanketing, also the overlapping would be too awkward if I really did some blanket here tbh.
5. 00:45:521 (5,6) - The flow is too near! Flow is "near"? I really don't get you ._. It's just a circulatory flowing here...

[MY DAD IS THE COOLEST ]

1. 00:06:585 (2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,1,2,3) - Hitsound really noisy! It's not really THAT noisy if you could hear the emphasis in-between drums and streams. So having the tendency to hear many tracks at the same time is needed for sure~
2. 00:52:862 (3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) - The flow is really ugly! Ehh... What makes it ugly? o_o

No KDS if my mod is not fixed all!

Good Luck~

Okorin wrote:

THE DIFFNAMES ARE FULL CAPS NOW

OK. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS SHOULD BE IN ALL CAPS TO KEEP THE THEME

C00L wrote:

Cho Kyuhyun
Cho Kyuhyun
Cho Kyuhyun
Cho Kyuhyun
Cho Kyuhyun
Cho Kyuhyun
Cho Kyuhyun
Cho Kyuhyun
Cho Kyuhyun
Cho Kyuhyun

Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun Cho Kyuhyun

DeRandom Otaku wrote:

Benis

-NanoRIPE- wrote:

shit mod incoming yey

[Easy]
00:19:032 (1) - maybe straight slider here? because if you use curve slider it doesnt looks good for flow imo I don't feel that a straight slider would fit best here for structure. And besides, it's probably symmetrical to the next slider so that should describe the whole thing here.
01:02:436 (3) - make this slider cutier? like the next one :3 ~ Made a little curve by doing an opposite, I guess...
01:04:670 (2,4) - this overlap bug me a lot lol Doesn't look pretty noticeable due AR, and i'm sure they're a bit far away to collide these two notes. It's not very perceptible imo.
01:15:840 (4) - ctrl j? for good pattern imo Sure!

[Normal]
00:25:734 (5,2) - maybe try avoid this overlap That's literally intentional tbh~ Nearly the same reason as before.
00:27:968 (3,1) - it would be great if you stack the head of slider (3) with the tail of slider (1) Alright
00:31:479 (5,6) - tbh i'm not reccomended 2 circles stack with a slider,maybe delete these circles and add 1/2 slider instead? Uhh I don't think this is really a problem here. Three-circle stacked aren't bad on normal diffs at all. As long as it's playable even when newbie normal players could do that for sure.
00:34:351 (1,2,3,4,5) - ehmm i'm not sure with this pattern xd try this http://prntscr.com/cqfqt6 I can see that the placements here are kinda specialized on this part as what you're trying to suggest. But for the current one I have right now, it's for specializing aesthetics. You could clearly see that I've did some symmetry or some pattern that looks really like it xd
00:41:691 (4,5) - same as before (i think this kind of circles should be in hard/advance not in normal xd) Same reason here as well.
00:46:479 (5,6,7) - ^ and move down to (240,344) for better placement? That's WAAAAYY too down in my point of view. I know it keeps up flow, but the best thing for structure here is to make those stacks narrowed on grid for gameplay.
00:56:691 (2) - why not make a natural flow like this? http://prnt.sc/cqfrzf (i know,its not your style but the flow looks not good for normal imo) I'd like to try something really different and vary than usual though. Making variations often displays the diff more interesting than "natural" ;p
01:06:904 (2) - ^ http://prnt.sc/cqfscj I might try this though! Flow goes towards to the next note which is quite better imo.
01:12:011 (2) - ^ http://prnt.sc/cqft5g Except these, same thing as before... Thanks for the efforts anyway!
01:18:394 (5) - ^ http://prnt.sc/cqftly

[Advance]
nice ty

[Hard]
nice ty

[L Insane]
00:22:223 (3) - ctrl g? because i think at here not should be a jump xd But the density is quite strong on this track imo, like the vocals for example. It has greater distinct which should probably have a small jump like this.
00:43:447 (6,7,8,9,1) - this pattern looks too crowd imo The pattern is not very much clustered together if you'd focus on flow or structure. So the playability isn't really affected even if there are a few overlaps (which are intentional ;p). This way the only thing I could put in as a triangle when I mapped this lol xd
00:44:883 (2) - ctrl j? The flow and aesthetics look good, but I kinda didn't like the structural flow that's getting next to it when I tried that, it nearly breaks though. So this shouldn't be implemented.

ok thats it ~
GL~

1. 00:45:840 (2) - maybe add those hitsound green lines here aswell since it fits for the buildup imo and you hitsounded these in your other diffs aswell
2. 01:03:713 (1,2,3) - rotate by -5 and readjust the rest a few pixels to avoid that overlap thingy or something else (kinda still noticable in this diff with default skin, normal is fine with the increased ar)
3. 01:15:840 (4,2) - stack? seems unintentional here

1. 00:08:819 (4) - NC pretty long combo here
2. 01:24:138 (2) - 1/2 return here? really strong middle beat here and it fits nicely with 01:26:691 (1) - and 00:08:819 (4) - imo
3. could consider deleting the first and last break here since its so short in this diff that the warning arrows immediatly show up, kinda more distracting then helping. Could NC that one note in the last break to create a follow line aswell if you decide to do it

1. 00:40:415 (4,5,6) - only thing that felt off compared to the similar ones in terms of flow transistion, maybe control+j 4 here so its an easier leadin to the body of 5 since its pretty linear now

1. 00:21:266 (7,8) - felt a bit off when those loud drums start 1/2 earlier, could maybe do something with that skipped beat aswell or make this a slider for that extended vocal thingy

1. 01:21:106 (8,9,10,11,1) - thats kinda evil to read man when you put a jump for the others playability wise, but it fits so solid diff!

1. 00:05:787 (4,5) - control + g rythm here maybe to make the previous sliders stand out more and you have that extended sound between 00:05:787 (4,5) - captured in a slider instead
2. 00:30:362 (6,7,8,9,10) - only thing that felt kinda unnatural to play, dunno might be bc of the trips starting on whites, would maybe go for a similar rythm like extra/insane here, don't really think 00:30:920 (8) - deserves to be clickable here compared to what you skipped
3. 01:03:394 (13,14,1) - would rotate 1 a bit more clockwise here, its already the hardest jump in the diff so a bit easier sliderbody flow wouldn't hurt imo
4. 01:21:186 (4,1) - these still 0.3ds? I kinda like it the way it is but dunno if its intional since its a bit inconistent with 01:20:867 (10,1) -

Wishkey wrote:

Yow, random mod really energic song! wwwwwwwwwwwww ayyyy

Easy

1. 00:45:840 (2) - maybe add those hitsound green lines here aswell since it fits for the buildup imo and you hitsounded these in your other diffs aswell Sure thing!
2. 01:03:713 (1,2,3) - rotate by -5 and readjust the rest a few pixels to avoid that overlap thingy or something else (kinda still noticable in this diff with default skin, normal is fine with the increased ar) I moved them pretty much away rather than rotating, since it was still overlapping. But it's changed anyway.
3. 01:15:840 (4,2) - stack? seems unintentional here It is intentional though, I never leave that out for distance spacing so yeah.

normal

1. 00:08:819 (4) - NC pretty long combo here Ahh, my mistake.
2. 01:24:138 (2) - 1/2 return here? really strong middle beat here and it fits nicely with 01:26:691 (1) - and 00:08:819 (4) - imo Alright, nice catch~
3. could consider deleting the first and last break here since its so short in this diff that the warning arrows immediately show up, kinda more distracting then helping. Could NC that one note in the last break to create a follow line aswell if you decide to do it I don't really think that's necessary though, I didn't want to create a blank timeline or an emptiness over those since the HP drain is (kinda) high for a normal diff. But it suits pretty well imo. So there's no way this should be called an issue.

hard

1. 00:40:415 (4,5,6) - only thing that felt off compared to the similar ones in terms of flow transistion, maybe control+j 4 here so its an easier leadin to the body of 5 since its pretty linear now Okay, changed the structure here a bit more.

advanced

1. 00:21:266 (7,8) - felt a bit off when those loud drums start 1/2 earlier, could maybe do something with that skipped beat aswell or make this a slider for that extended vocal thingy Inputting notes on many downbeats feel pretty much better than following various tracks but here, I probably dislike adding something more on this part. It might increase the note density unexpectedly which would take too much emphasis, so I should literally avoid that for sure.

light insane

1. 01:21:106 (8,9,10,11,1) - thats kinda evil to read man when you put a jump for the others playability wise, but it fits so solid diff! It's not that hard reading after the other slider streaming and the next one comes up with circles. It won't affect the playstyle tbh.

Cool!

1. 00:05:787 (4,5) - control + g rhythm here maybe to make the previous sliders stand out more and you have that extended sound between 00:05:787 (4,5) - captured in a slider instead Quite a good one, but the build-up tracking wouldn't sound really interesting though. As well as the density, it would somehow create a bit of spike or a reduction if I redo this. I may keep this to avoid that of course.
2. 00:30:362 (6,7,8,9,10) - only thing that felt kinda unnatural to play, dunno might be bc of the trips starting on whites, would maybe go for a similar rythm like extra/insane here, don't really think 00:30:920 (8) - deserves to be clickable here compared to what you skipped Yeah, did a five-notes stream here for consistency with my other diffs.
3. 01:03:394 (13,14,1) - would rotate 1 a bit more clockwise here, its already the hardest jump in the diff so a bit easier sliderbody flow wouldn't hurt imo Didn't rotate because of the structural flowing but I probably changed a few small placements for this, so that counts too.
4. 01:21:186 (4,1) - these still 0.3ds? I kinda like it the way it is but dunno if its intentional since its a bit inconsistent with 01:20:867 (10,1) - Didn't know what to do here, so... changed a bit I guess ;/

Cool diffs hehe, looks about ready gl with ranked!

1. Your mp3 is 128kbps if you can try find a better one xdddddd
2. your bg is at a resolution of 1024x768 try finding the same dad bg with a resolution of 1366x768 xddd if you wish

1. Check!

1. Check!

1. Check!

1. Check!

1. Check!

1. 01:06:266 (1) - touches the hp bar!!

1. 00:10:973 - hmm i think it would be a cool feature to add a note here to not loose intensity you just gathered in the previous section

1. 00:34:670 (2,3) - the spacing here is kinda questionable imo with such high vocal intensity comparing these jumps to 00:35:308 (5,6) - is kinda weird since they are both the same jumping wise but one has stronger sounds to them aa
2. 01:08:420 (12) - why is the stream direction change allocated at this not, personally id put it here 01:08:500 (13) - since thats where the stronger sound occurs, also i would increase spacing and nc it xddd

C00L wrote:

Right
Check! - Means it's been checked and nothing wrong has been found
Please ignore my note/slider placement on the timeline, i do that to show make my point more clearer
Red - Indicates that an unrankable issue has been found

[General]

1. Your mp3 is 128kbps if you can try find a better one xdddddd wth more kbps more louder hoyl 128kbps mp3 actually suffices ;p
2. your bg is at a resolution of 1024x768 try finding the same dad bg with a resolution of 1366x768 xddd if you wish It's the best one I have for sure. The 1366x768 is just a maximum resolution use for widescreen client. 1024x768 is also allowed as long as it's a standard reso.

[Easy Dad]

1. Check! t

[Normal Dad]

1. Check! y

[Advanced Dad]

1. Check! d

[Hard Dad]

1. Check! a

[Light Insane Dad]

1. Check! d

[Me!]

1. 00:34:670 (2,3) - the spacing here is kinda questionable imo with such high vocal intensity comparing these jumps to 00:35:308 (5,6) - is kinda weird since they are both the same jumping wise but one has stronger sounds to them aa Ahh, if you can see. It's a copy-paste pattern also to 00:34:989 (4,5) - but a bit rotated ofc. It's kinda hard to describe, but actually it's something that makes the structure play more enthralling.
2. 01:08:420 (12) - why is the stream direction change allocated at this not, personally id put it here 01:08:500 (13) - since thats where the stronger sound occurs, also i would increase spacing and nc it xddd Well, I wouldn't want to add more overdone new combos. But increasing the spacing... yeah I wanna buff up my extra diff for more pp /runs

[Final Words]
This was hard to mod hloy, so polished jezzzzzz
Good Luck CV ;DDDD *cough* appologies for short modd aaaaa

Drakylon wrote:

For M4M... though I feel a bit bad about not having many comments. This is already so polished

Also sadly I can't play the Insanes, so any comments I might have on those difficulties wouldn't be very useful.

---

In general: Greys can lead to a lot of visibility issues especially considering the background image, leading to a fair bit of artificial difficulty. Furthermore, the color of the circles and sliders when they fade out is almost identical to the grey you use (especially their approach circles). Consider using a brighter color, or at least avoid stacking light greys while another one is fading out.

[Easy]
All good!

[Normal]
All good... if I don't go full Nazi mode on those sharp sliders which I'll try not to.
00:24:777 (3) - would probably look better if it were smooth considering all the other sliders in the combo are straight or smooth. Kinda agree for the consistency tho, will redo it a curve.
01:00:362 (4) - same here, to match the (3) Starting from here, I'd like to keep these kind of aesthetics for differential positions in every track, in order to look better in gameplay ofc. Same goes to the other two.
01:10:754 (4) - same here, to match the (3)
01:16:957 (2) - same here, to match the (1) and (4)

[Advanced]
01:02:596 (6,7,8) - no reason these three sliders can't just be circles/short streams For circles, I think it's quite a lot of overclicking circles on a diff that's supposed to be non-repetitive and less dense than hard. And for short streams, It's kinda worse than 1/2 circles and would increase note density much more. I guess finding something better than this rhythm composition is quite not necessary unless so.
01:08:181 (7) - this particular hold slider seems to be too long for the overall rhythm of the map and lasts significantly longer than the sliders around it; feels a bit bad to play. Maybe split it into two? Reduced the reverses on the slider instead~

[Hard]
difficulty sliders imply normal more than hard (and are too similar to advanced) - consider slightly increasing hp drain rate, circle size and/or overall difficulty.
That kinda ruins the balance of the difficulty setting around this diff though. Even a slight change would make it look "too" hard.

00:30:202 (5) - honestly hard to read; approach circle is overshadowed by the bright orange ball circle from the slider, on top of light grey circle being overlapped by the light grey of the slider fading out. I know it's supposed to be hard, but bad visibility should not be a way to increase difficulty. Alright, changed the patterning.
01:00:202 (7) - similar issue here; light grey approach circles are hard to see on this background (imo) and the fade color is almost identical to the light grey you use, so it's not too easy to actually realize there's another note fading in while the (5) is fading out. Well, this one's a little more different than above, I've done much like a stacking here so I'm guessing it's quite acceptable as long as the approach circles is a little slow and distinguishable.