Sonnyc wrote:

Easy.
01:00:076 - This feels super inaudible. still wondering how that happened
02:48:816 (3,4) - Inconsistent spacing due to the sv transition. You'll want to make the real spacings consistent since this is a single note. this seems like the only thing i forgot lol looking at the other svs this is a simple mistake, good catch

Normal.
00:09:429 (1,2) - Not really sure if using a different 1/2 spacing concept with 00:01:929 (1,2) - 00:03:804 (1,2) created a structure here. this part has a SV buildup, i'm not really using different spacings the sliders later are just slightly faster and just lowering spacing for that doesn't seem that logical to me
00:45:171 (1,2,3) - Um considering the intermediate was dealing these with a slider... I feel using a circle on these abnormal rhythms wasn't a balanced setting to show in this difficulty. i had sliders there first but opted for circles because they're 1. way easier 2. way more varied than sliderspam so they're overall more interesting
02:31:929 (1,2,1) - I don't think a sudden jump at (2,1) is musically supported nor forming a good technique. took care of that... i think
02:37:800 (2,3) - What's with the inconsistent spacing? no idea, i don't take the consistent spacing thing too seriously in lower diffs anyways so stuff like that is bound to happen randomly xd

Intermediate.
00:02:983 (3) - Seeming from how you've made placmenets at 00:04:507 (2,3,4) - 00:06:382 (2,3,4) , I don't think this spacing inconsistency is ever intended.
00:10:132 (2,3,4) - 00:13:882 (2,3,4) - ^ while i don't think any of these affect anything of notability i think i got rid of these
00:15:070 (1,2,3) - Mind making the heads in a consistent spacing to make it more stable? them being uneven is actually the point here, i did slight sv changes in expert at that point and slight spacing changes at that point in this diff because i think it's a buildup
00:22:085 (5,1) - mm Though these objects were close each other, I couldn't feel some relationship each other. Even if it wasn't intended, but still in points of technical skills. Mind making this something like http://puu.sh/txDqu/352c5e3a59.jpg for a balanced visual? the only relatinoship that kinda matters to me is that the slider that starts the next measure is going in opposite direction but whatever i tried to fix this
00:26:772 (2) - Offscreen object. oops

Insane.
02:44:128 (5,6) - Can this be a little bit distant for consistency with other 1/4 spacings? it is now a little bit more distant similar to 02:41:316 (1,2) -

Expert.
00:53:725 (8,9) - Why is this manual stacked? idk lol

Solid mapset. Popping over unrankables. Poke me when fixes are made!

Yuii- wrote:

no toucherino, its mine!!

Lasse wrote:

touch

Yuii- wrote:

yes

1. 02:35:679 - These final Kiais bug me the most, because I simply don't see how like a quater of these combos fit to the song here at all. When I played this for the first time, I actually imagined hearing the rhythms from 00:16:929 - or 01:35:679 - again bc many of the offbeat-sliders just didn't make sense to me any other way:
   
   
   1. 02:41:316 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - So this combo starts doing offbeat-party at 02:41:667 (3) which already doesn't make much sense to me. I get that it's mapped to the same sorta thing like 02:38:386 (5) but the huge difference is that at 02:38:386 (5) the head is mapped to the single highest note of the synth around here, which stands out a lot due to all other notes being very low again. But this is not the case for 02:41:667 (3) at all, as the note here is the exact same as the one at 02:41:198 which has been ignored, so this is pretty unexpected. But that's not my main problem here, after I had written the next two points I realized that the problem is something completely different and that this can work if the following stuff is 'fixed', but I'm just gonna leave this here so you have something to think about. sorry for writing so much >///<
   2. Stuff starts getting really weird with 02:41:901 (4) bc this seems to be offbeat for no apparent reason and kills any possible structure of offbeat-sliders completely because it doesn't have the highest note of the 1/4s on its head, or anywhere else for that matter. By mapping this slider, you take away all the emphasis from the head of 02:42:136 (5) because it isn't differentiated at all. Now my simple solution for this would be to replace that slider with two circles, but wait, there's more!
   3. 02:42:136 (5) - I don't see why this is a 1/1-slider instead of a 1/2-slider at all. Skipping the downbeat here rips away any feeling of relatedness that is still left since this is one hell of a monotonous section where nothing changes at all, but suddenly one of the core elements of the rhythm that makes this section what it is (continuous) is skipped (breaking that continuity and your hitsounding), and I just can't find a reason for it. So far, it seemed like you used 1/1-sliders to emphasize the continuous 2/1-notes that are building the harmonic foundation, they are either completely on-beat or they are delayed like at 02:38:620 (5) which works really well because the 2/1-sound isn't immediately audible due to the strong bass and it being unprecedentedly low. But 02:42:136 (5) is completely different to that, it is earlier instead of on-beat or delayed, which just doesn't work at all as there's no musical indication of anything like that, expect for an offbeat-note that basically happens on every third note and has so far always been mapped with 1/2-sliders. Solution: Make it 1/2.
   4. Now that's it for the main problems I have with this section, since those kind of issues just get repeated once or twice in the following sections, but assuming that you've tried 'fixing' those point like I suggested, there's one more thing to add: After shortening that 1/1-slider I just mentioned, the two logical things to do with the now empty spot at 02:42:370 would be to either put a 1/1-slider there, basically repeating 02:38:386 (5,6) -, or just adding a circle. Placing a 1/1-slider wouldn't really work because the perma-1/4s have been emphasized so much with the two offbeat-sliders that suddenly ignoring 02:42:605 by placing a slidertail on it would feel completely unnatural. Assuming that you wanna keep your offbeat-sliders, circles seems (to me) to be the reasonable thing to do. But 02:44:011 (5) isn't emphasized at all either, which makes that feel just as unnatural again, so if you do that, please use the rhythm from 02:38:386 (5,6) at 02:44:011 again. Currently, you instead emphasize 02:44:480 (7) which seems somewhat reasonable when you only look at these notes, but looking at the bigger picture the 1/4s are going from their highest note by far at 02:44:011 down by a whole quart (from this down to this), so emphasizing the low one instead of the high one doesn't make sense to me, especially since you did it differently before.
      The moral of this last point: Go big or go home, either you really emphasize those offbeat-rhythms for whole combos and continue to emphasize them in appropriate places afterwards too, or you just always emphasize a single significant offbeat and then return to the casual rhythm, but don't mix it up while not really following either of those rhythms, it doesn't really work for this song imo.
2. Now for some points applying to these the seciton at 00:31:929 and mostly also to 02:20:679 -
   
   
   • The transition from the first two 4/4-combos to the offbeat-rhythms that you emphasize in the following two combos could be much smoother with just a really small change: Using this rhythm at the third combo. Please try it, the current one feels really unnatural and forced bc it is such a harsh change that goes from continuing the pure 4/4-rhythm to pure offbeat in just one object, 00:36:616 (3) -, but the change in the music doesn't feels that sudden to me at all since those offbeats have existed the whole time but they are continuously getting more noticable (and the original 4/4-rhythm continues to exist), and by mapping 00:35:679 (1,2) differently you would indicate that there is something different beginning to happen but it still feels like the original rhythm.
   1. The transition back to the 4/4-rhythm at 00:39:429 feels super underwhelming because the downbeat, which has a very special beat/sound on it, isn't emphasized at all, may I suggest replacing 00:39:194 (11,12) with a slider?
   2. The introduction of 00:43:296 (1) is pretty much the most uncomfortable thing I have ever played since it suddenly emphasizes the same rhythmic phrase 360° 180° differently
   3. 00:45:405 (3,6,9) - Why are those mapped as sliders, you put an extremely significant gap at 00:45:054 which is a really cool thing but you make it seem random by mapping it again immediately afterwards.. Just mapping them as circles and leaving those gaps would compliment this really well and also possibly emphasize 00:46:929 (1) more
3. 01:37:554 (1,4) - Improper stack, DQ please, and don't you dare responding with "no thanks" :^)

Okorin wrote:

oh god im gonna be so stuck in trying to decipher what you mean if you walltext me

Okorin's edit wrote:

thanks for editing and making this post useless

Bonsai wrote:

1. Now for some points applying to these the seciton at 00:31:929 and mostly also to 02:20:679 -
   
   
   • The transition from the first two 4/4-combos to the offbeat-rhythms that you emphasize in the following two combos could be much smoother with just a really small change: Using this rhythm at the third combo. Please try it, the current one feels really unnatural and forced bc it is such a harsh change that goes from continuing the pure 4/4-rhythm to pure offbeat in just one object, 00:36:616 (3) -, but the change in the music doesn't feels that sudden to me at all since those offbeats have existed the whole time but they are continuously getting more noticable (and the original 4/4-rhythm continues to exist), and by mapping 00:35:679 (1,2) differently you would indicate that there is something different beginning to happen but it still feels like the original rhythm. but the difference is that the quads here are way more pronounced.....???
   1. The transition back to the 4/4-rhythm at 00:39:429 feels super underwhelming because the downbeat, which has a very special beat/sound on it, isn't emphasized at all, may I suggest replacing 00:39:194 (11,12) with a slider? the difference here is that you have to play a quad in order to reach it so just highlighting it via spacing is kinda meh as an idea imo
   2. The introduction of 00:43:296 (1) is pretty much the most uncomfortable thing I have ever played since it suddenly emphasizes the same rhythmic phrase 360° 180° differently idk how this is uncomfortable hence i dunno how to address it or make it less uncomfortable for that matter, i don't even have a clue what your issue with it is
   3. 00:45:405 (3,6,9) - Why are those mapped as sliders, you put an extremely significant gap at 00:45:054 which is a really cool thing but you make it seem random by mapping it again immediately afterwards.. Just mapping them as circles and leaving those gaps would compliment this really well and also possibly emphasize 00:46:929 (1) more this is simply changing the ticks i follow as clickable by using a long enough timeline gap...??
2. 01:37:554 (1,4) - Improper stack, DQ please, and don't you dare responding with "no thanks" :^)

I haven't looked at the other diffs but if you want more rhythmic advise (Doofnuss-kun praised my rhythm-choices in the first GMC, those were good times ) please hit me up, these few rhythm-issues ruined an otherwise really nice for me so I'd be happy to give more suggestions xd

1. @ your first response
   "playing double, triple, double just plays outright badly"
   The way I suggested fixing it (this) isn't 2-3-2, it's 2-3-3-2, which doesn't play poorly for me at all and you switch from doublets to triplets and quadruplets or back in quite many places so I don't see why that would only play bad here
   
   You don't need to explain why you map melody, I am totally fine with not making it boring, but I'm saying that the way you did it is bad because half of the offbeat-sliders that you had to map because of that feel random and lead to the reasonable ones not being emphasized at all. The intention is clear, just the execution makes it play worse for me than any combination of doublets and triplets ever could
   
   (and I never said anything against 02:38:386 (5,6) -, I actually suggested to use it again in a later place too xd)
   
   
2. @ quads being more pronounced: My point is that those quads get more pronounced smoothly, they are already more pronounced at 00:36:030 and 00:36:499 than they were before too, but you just map it as going from [zero pronounciation] to [a shitload of pronounciation] without anything in-between, which doesn't match the music and thus feels not fitting at all to me and just ripped me out of the song's and map's flow
   
   
3. @ introducing 00:43:296 (1) -: oh sorry I didn't finish writing that one bc I spotted the next one and forgot lol
   The reason why it feels uncomfortable is that the piano continues to have the exact same rhythmic phrase, having ascending notes from the first blue tick to the second blue tick, this phrase doesn't change in it's rhythmic or tonal component at all, it just changes intensity and synth-sound, as it always did (continuously instead of suddenly). But the map goes from [emphasizing the highest note the most and ignoring the white tick] to [emphasizing the lowest note the most and ignoring everything else but the white tick], which is pretty much the opposite, without any musical cue.
   
   
4. @ last point: Yeah I am completely fine with the gap ("which is a really cool thing") but my suggestion was to continue using this sort of gap like this bc the music isn't different at 00:45:054 than any of the following white ticks, that whoosh-sound is there all the time

dexwin9 wrote:

how i can play a song for example of hastsune miku?