Thanks!Osuology wrote:
from my queue sorry I was like 9 days late
L0L?
00:15:981 (2,3,4,5) - I don't think this flow really matches the song or the flow you've already been mapping with. I would recommend something like this: I don't think there's a problem with it. It also helps me tell the player that they'll encounter similar patterns (like 00:51:072 (7,8,1)). As far as fitting the song goes, I think it does? I also haven't received any complaints about this before, but if it really becomes an issue I'll figure something up. For now I'm keeping it as is.
00:19:617 (7,1) - This jump bothers me I'm not sure why. I can't see a problem? It's consistent with what I've been doing up to that point (heavy drum sound = jump) and the DS isn't really that big, 00:15:254 (7,1) has one that's similar and 00:15:254 (7,1) has an even bigger one.
00:50:345 (1,1) - NC's are very weird throughout this section, and if you're not going to change it, please tell me why. Changed 00:49:981 (5), keeping the rest. Idea was to have one every big white tick, but I forgot that one. The one's at 00:53:617 (1,1,1,1) are placed since I like to point out SV changes as clearly as possible, even if they're not that big a deal.
01:20:708 (8,1) - This bothers me. First of all, distance is a huge amount, larger than I think would be necessary. Second, again, it's not very consistent with flow. It's a triangle which you really didn't use many of before. (Or at least that I noticed) Try something that feels more snappy than a triangle. Reduced DS. I've been using triangles throughout the whole diff, though? Heck, I basically map by making triangles xDDD 00:14:345 (4,5,6) - 00:48:890 (7,8,1) - 00:49:435 (2,3,4) - 01:00:890 (7,8,1) - 01:13:799 (5,6,7) just to point a few that have come up to that point, and there's a looot more past that. I love to make them.
01:45:981 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1) - This is a hard decision tbh. I could say that it's stupid to put stream jumps here since you never indicated to the player the map would be this way, but then again there isn't really much before this part that you could change to show the player so... I don't know. Make your decision, personally I would recommend to remove the stream but tbh it's not too important. (Also this applies to the other streams with jumps in them) I really love these stream jumps throughout the diff, for several reasons. First, it's a really calm map, that has practically no streams throughout the diff, so I wanted to make them count, make them feel special somehow everytime they showed up. Streamjumps were the only thing that came to mind when I was mapping. Second, I think they're way more fun to play than an old boring stream here. Third, they're more interesting to look at At this point, unless they are unrankable for some reason, I'd really like to keep them.
02:09:981 (4) - This slider should really be moving upward if you want to remain consistent with your flow. If you look at the other sliders that are on notes like this, they always go the opposite direction of the previous slider, so you should do that with this one. Maybe. I don't think it's that inconsistent, I mainly changed gears here since I didn't have confortable space to make an interesting pattern that went upwards here. Also I wasn't really going for the oppossite direction sliders approach, it just ended like that while I was mapping. 02:16:163 (3,4) - 02:17:254 (6,1) -
02:34:617 () - There is a very slight guitar sound here, not sure if you want to map it or not. If you do, you probably should use a slider that ends on this point. Avoided on purpose, since it made the rhythm way complicated and was awkward to play a slider there when 02:34:708 (8) has a stront sound that should be clickable
02:36:890 (6) - I don't think dropoff flow is a good think here. Why? It plays nice.
03:49:072 (4,1) - I don't like this jump at all. Any reasons for that? It's a big jump, sure, but hardly a stretch considering what's been brought up to that point. It also serves as a way to release energy from the kiai and enter the slow rhythm again IMO.
04:26:890 (2) - That's awfully close. Fixed, I hope?
05:22:890 (1) - This possibly could be in a different timing section.sure