Loreley wrote:

m4m

• 
  [Extra]

1. 00:58:117 (1) - http://puu.sh/uQlhx/ae09d382b8.png ? – why?
2. 01:06:392 (1,2,3) - more structurally and flowly http://puu.sh/uQlCk/4270ac127b.png – structure and flow seem fine to me, fill in the gap: http://puu.sh/uRNmi/f751cdeed1.jpg
3. 01:08:461 (5,6) - I think you need to increase spacing here, bcuz the sounds are pretty strong and on the jumps before that you used bigger spacing so the transition between them will be kinda confusing for players. I'd even leave the spacing the way it was on previous jumps. – so I tested a bunch of different things. I tested really big spacing into (5,6), but like I suspected, I didn't like it. We disagree on how much intensity is at the notes at (5,6). I'm really listening to the vocals, and they're going crazy, then the cymbals act like the calming resolution of that intensity. I tried buffing just the DS into (6) slightly, and it felt really just the same as what I have. Could definitely see more people changing my mind though.
4. 01:09:065 (7) - btw if it's not an intended overmap then I'd suggest extending the slider to the blue tick – there is a drum note on this tick. I actually thought I was gonna get chewed out for not acknowledging that.
5. 00:14:496 (3) - use nc on every moment like that for the esthetics – I think the aesthetics are fine as is and having a NC only on 00:15:186 (1) – makes it more emphasized.
   [Light Insane]
6. 00:20:013 (3) - same point as in extra – ^
7. 01:07:772 (1,2,3,4) - http://puu.sh/uQnj7/a3779b2b6b.png it's possible to make a smoother trapeze here – yeah that'd look fine, but the current idea is to match 01:07:944 (2,4) – 's spacing with 01:07:427 (4,2) – 's spacing, and I think it looks fine as is as well, though if people complain more I will change it.
8. 01:14:324 (6,7) - The spacing here is pretty small compared to the whole pattern, I guess you just haven't found a better way to make everything look esthetically correct, I'd suggest this instead: http://puu.sh/uQnPo/1bba2ed5e1.png – improved the structure of the original pattern. The current spacing is intentional to provide rest to the pattern. Being restful here allows me to properly emphasize the strong notes that are stronger than the other strong notes.
9. 01:18:806 (1) - http://puu.sh/uQnRs/cb82dc7a22.png same as in extra maybe – it's not a bad idea, but I prefer what I have.
   [Hard]
10. 00:51:220 (1,2) - That's really nazi to say but I think your previous 180° patterns were fitting better for the musics' tempo in that moment, maybe use the same here, too? It is more interesting for playing – I agree that this is a bit weird, so changed to make it not so weird.
    [Normal]
11. 00:40:186 (4) - more curve pls for better flow – parallel/copy of (1)
12. 00:55:358 (1,2) - you're ignoring an important sound on the red tick right here – this is intentional. I don't want the difficulty to be too hard, and I don't want to make 00:56:737 – feel weak because it's a sliderend, which would happen if you put a circle on that red tick.
13. 00:57:772 (5) - I suggest making this a slider for a better song emphasis, because the sound is continious and ends on the red tick – same reason as above, I don't want to complicate the rhythm too much

Best of luck -- thank you, and thanks for the mod!

Plaudible wrote:

m4m!

Normal

1. 00:04:151 (4) - Redo this blanket a tad – tried, but if I actually knew how it wouldn't be bad.
2. 00:05:703 (1) - With how you mapped the 1/2 in the intro with the vocals, it's only appropriate to do the same here, IMO. Putting the vocals like that on the sliderend is a bit underwhelming – If I'm understanding your suggestion correctly, you want me to end the slider at 00:06:392 - ? There's no vocal there though. That seems overwhelming.
3. 00:06:910 (2) - ^
4. 00:10:186 (3) - 1/2 reverses aren't off limits and could be nice here. Regardless though, the angle on this square is a bit odd in relation to the slider before, why not: https://puu.sh/uQuTr/44c92074db.jpg -- TESTING
5. 00:13:289 (5,1,2,3,4) - This is extremely dense rhythmically, if you could find a way to cut it down a bit that'd be nice. – Long sliders aren't that dense to me
6. 00:21:392 (4,5,1) - Well here's your answer xd if you could do the same at ^ that'd be better, and more consistent. – Reverse sliders are less dense than circles because there is less clicking and sets up the ½ rhythm at 00:16:737 (1) – less densely. Is this a rhythm or a readability concern? I'd need a better argument for either before changing it.
7. 00:30:530 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - This is the hardest part of your map, and IMO not appropriately so. Maybe use more sliders emphasize the trumpet? – Yeah, I think I'll change (1) and (3) into sliders.
8. 00:33:979 (3) - Bit curious with your usage of these, you use them all the time until the vocals pick up a bit, and while the same rhythm persists you jump to the vocals instead, which hurts your consistency here overall. Could I suggest mapping it one way or the other in this section entirely for overall consistency? – yeah I really should have given up trying to express the music the way I thought it should be expressed because of issues like this. The reverse sliders are trying to pick up those drum-kicks, but the vocals get really cool that I want to highlight those, but you're basically right, and I don't want to run into any issues during nomination. I'll wait for more responses then change them.
9. 00:50:530 (3) - Nice build up here, GJ – thanks!
10. Probably just how I map normals, but 00:58:634 (2,3) - I feel could be stacked, the stop and go motion emphasize the vocals better. If you do this, do it throughout~ – great suggestion!
11. 01:07:772 (5,6) - Patterns like this throughout your map could be a lot more attractive if you use consistent angle rotations for them, they just feel a bit random. – this is my life as a mapper, I can't think beyond the screen I see. On the other hand, I don't like it would feel too similar to 01:02:944 (5,6) – if I just copy-pasted (though it probably feels similar as is anyway). Changed a bit.
12. 01:17:254 (1) - Way too long IMO. End it at 01:17:772, circle at 01:17:944. – good idea
13. 01:24:841 (4) - Again with this, I'd use the circle pattern you did before. – yeah, I was thinking I should do something else with this rhythm.

Hard

1. 00:10:013 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - Do you think this is appropriate compared to the difficulty before leading into this? :< this is an extreme density build up which is arguably a lot more intense than some parts in your kiai. Use some 1/2 reverses or something instead too, it's too much in contrast to your intro. – you're right, made (2) a ½ slider.
2. 00:26:910 (3,5) - Accidental manual stack? – First off, how did you notice? Second, it's intentional
3. 00:27:772 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - The vocals here are more sharp sounding in the first 4 sliders, but they have a much more smooth flow in comparison to the second softer vocal bit, which have very sharp movement. Honestly, it's not that different, I'd make the flow here more similar. The linear flow into the back and forth doesn't make sense in respect to what the song feels like. – it makes sense to me
4. 00:44:323 (1) - This section is mapped fine, but you really don't ever let down on the constant 1/2, and I think you should try to get a point where the gameplay stops. Perhaps make 00:46:737 (3) - a circle instead, at least one point will make it not excessively dense. It'll help to contrast the intensity of the all 1/2 parts later in the kiai, too. – you may be right from a global perspective, but from a local perspective I can't find any slider that feels better as a circle.
5. 00:49:841 (1,2,3,4,1,2) - Similar flow issues that I take here, same reasoning as before. – changed a little bit
6. 00:56:737 (1,2,3,4) - Do something else here. 1,2 are fine, but 3,4 are stronger and so I think should get even slightly more emphasis somehow, whether it be by spacing or an angle difference. This implies they're all the same. – there is an angle difference though. 00:56:392 (3,1,2) – is a triangle, so the first time you feel a 90 degree angle is starting at 00:57:082 (3) - . I'd be open to making it a rectangle though, so let me get some opinions on it.

Light Insane

1. Why not just call this Insane? :> Light Insane usually feels like it implies there's a regular insane too, which you don't have. Maybe just buff it a tad for better spread, too. – Changed to Insane
2. 00:30:530 (1,2) - These should probably be overlapped, it's hard to really interpret that they're 1/4 given how you spaced some parts like 00:26:910 (3,4) - – But it looks so pretty right now . K, overlapped them, but can't wait for BN's to say my map looks bad now and not worth ranking
3. 00:56:048 (2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,1) - A 9 note stream really would be better off with some motion, stacking anything past triples is a bit iffy. Get a bit creative here, do something more! – will need to get more opinions before I change if it's a readability issue. I don't like your creativity argument because you wouldn't be complaining if it was a simple curve or line motion when those aren't creative. What I like about the stack is it sets up to do a ¼ jump at (1) that is so small it's not too difficult and also makes it somewhat readable that that is the downbeat you stop the stream at.
4. Regarding the stacked overlapping stuff you got going on here, 00:56:737 (1,4,1) - try to tidy it up if you redo ^. – this is intentional.
5. 01:14:496 (7) - Too close for comfort - cutting spacing by 1/2 like this suddenly especially on the intense vocals stands out and plays poorly. – the red tick is a weak vocal, so I like resting here. I've gotten another complaint about it though so I will be more open to this if I get more criticism though.
6. 01:21:048 (4,1) - Blanket -- dear god
7. 01:25:530 (1) - I know the sound "carries" here, but I'd argue with you to make this a circle. The silence that ensues fits more and is emphasized without that sliderend, and adds to the much needed "pause" that fits the song here, please consider it! – I actually had it as a circle, but then I realized there is a drum beat at 01:25:617 – and I didn't want to get chewed out for not acknowledging it. I tested both again to be sure and I didn't see a large difference between the patterns so that either rhythm would be good and rankable. There's certainly validity in making this change, but in the spirit of laziness and not getting yelled at for missing drum beats, I'll keep it as is.

Extra

1. 00:03:461 (3,4) - Even if the vocals are strong here, does it really justify going from 1.5x to 4.5x DS? :< -- yes, but reduced slightly
2. 00:12:944 (2,3) - Could you make this a slider? The small spacing feels weird, and might as well be a slider with how small it is, plus it emphasizes the trumpet on the next few circles better. -- the rhythm is fine, the spacing wasn't
3. 00:15:186 (1) - The sound here is pretty strong, but is it really worth the huge DS spike again? – yes
4. 00:25:013 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - You could do something a bit more here with representing the song. I'm guessing you picked up that 00:26:392 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - is sort of a repetition of the previous measure so you copied the rhythm, but why not go as far as to copy maybe an easier version of the same pattern? It mimics the vocals, let your map mimic them too. Just an idea! – these patterns don't repeat themselves because of the bells at 00:26:737 (2,3) - , but if the bells weren't there that's what I'd do.
5. 00:30:530 (1,2,1,2) - Love the idea! But you should present it in a way so the player can clearly see that this is unique and 3/4. Perhaps stacking sliderends, things like that, or using unique shapes. – I like the intention behind your suggestion, but I currently don't know how to properly execute it. I might ask you questions about this later.
6. 00:39:151 (2,3,4,5,1,2) - You made a boo boo in rhythm here. 00:39:151 (2) - Should be 2 circles, 00:39:495 (3,4) - a slider, 00:39:841 (5) - 2 circles, 00:40:185 (1,2) - a slider... so on. (at least based on your other difficulties.) – the rhythms are currently the same throughout the diffs. Can you point out the musical reason I shouldn't use this rhythm?
7. 00:57:082 (3) - Might I suggest NCing this? – Nah
8. Speaking of the above pattern, I love it but structuring it a bit more nicely could make it more attractive. Try this: https://puu.sh/uQxmx/f7740fece3.jpg
9. 01:03:634 (1) - Just a personal peeve, wide open sliders like this just look a bit odd. Could you tighten the curve a bit? – I like the idea, but doing so would make the 01:03:634 (1,5) – blanket weird. If (5) weren't here, then yeah I'd do what you say.
10. 01:05:530 (3) - 1.20x to 2.94x is a bit much... even for trumpet emphasis, don't do wildly different spacings like this. – nerfed slightly
11. 01:06:392 (1,2,3,4) - Could you make this a full bodied 4 shape pattern? Like 4 sliders in a square-circle thingy. Don't put 4 back where 1 was, re-arrange some things so you use it fully. – I'd like to think that you're thinking too much like a mapper. Just because it can be done doesn't mean it has to. The aesthetics are fine as is and I like the flow the way it currently is.
12. 01:08:461 (5) - Personally I think this functions better as a 3/4 slider. I rearranged some things, perhaps something like this? https://puu.sh/uQxDx/a929295477.jpg -- tested it. 3/4 is fine, but I prefer 1/2
13. 01:14:151 (5,2) - Gross overlap pls fix </3 – stop looking at it in the editor. These objects have faded and no aesthetical relation can be drawn between them.
14. 01:16:565 (4) - Relatively speaking this section is a lot more chill than what just happened, this spacing feels overdone -- nerfed a tiny bit
15. 01:17:944 (3) - Even worse ^ – nerfed a bit
16. 01:24:151 (1) - Same spacing concern -- I'm sorry you feel that way
17. 01:25:013 (6,7,8) - Just not a fan of how this looks overall, played around with it a bit, maybe doing something like this: https://puu.sh/uQxW2/dbb362c676.jpg would be nicer? It gives a better buildup emphasis, IMO. – I like the current flow, but improved the aesthetics/structure of current pattern
18. 01:25:530 (1) - Same case as the insane, I really would like to see a circle here instead. Sliderend feels like it kills the pause. – see Insane

good luck mr. pinataweebman! – thanks a bunch!

SkyDevil wrote:

hii m4m

Easy

• 
  *00:25:358 - You should consider using a slider tick which uses the same sound as your clap, so parts like this dont sound so empty – There are some sliders where I would have to increase the tick rate to 2 in order to do that. I'm not sure, still considering.
  *00:33:289 (1) - finish hitsound here – fixed

Normal

• 
  *00:18:806 (5,1) - ehh not a big fan of (5) covering up (1), you need to move (1,2,3,4,5) to the left in order to be able to turn (5) properly – couldn't find ways to move to the left, so went off the grid a bit, but it's still on screen.
  *00:22:082 (1) - finish hitsound – fixed
  *00:32:254 (6,7,1) - having (6) stacked on top of (7) and then having (1) under (7) might be a bit too messy, you should make it a bit more consistent by having (6) spaced out as well – the music is not the same and the rhythm is not the same (circle --> slider vs slider end --> circle), so I don't see a reason to be consistent. I like it the way it is.
  *00:43:117 (4,5,6) - this might be a bit too hard for a non kiai part, you go from a circle to a long slider to a short slider and then a circle.. people might missclick, so how about make (5) another 1/1 slider? – –good idea
  *00:57:082 (2,3,4,5) - this as well... maybe make one of the two circles a slider, tapping 2xtwice in a row might be too hard – not sure about this one, will get more opinions
  *01:16:220 (3) - having so many repeats in a row might be troublesome because Ive noticed that many newbies suck at repeats, youre following the vocals pretty closely so I really suggest you to find something else to fit in – it seems fine to me, maybe I should go talk to newbies. There's a fair amount of reverse sliders at 00:33:979 (3) – etc, so maybe this could be a good map for practicing them.

Hard

• 
  *00:08:203 (1,2) - a bit of a personal nitpick but this looks a bit eh, I prefer this not touching (1) because it looks a bit awkward xD – I respect your opinion, but this is a bread and butter technique in ranked maps.
  *00:33:289 (1) - finish hitsound – fixed
  *00:39:496 (3,4,1,2,4,5) - you should consider spacing them out, having so many stacked notes in arow might be a bit boring – this effect is intentional to express the vocals.
  *00:45:358 (3) - or 00:46:737 (3) - maybe its a bit more fun if you make one of these two circles instead of a slider because you use sliders so much in this part – Plaudible said a similar thing. I can't see how a circle is better than a slider if I look at any one measure, but I fear that the community will convince me to do it.
  *00:52:427 (6,1) - a bit of awkward spacing compared to the circles before (6) – the jump is intentional
  *00:56:737 (1,2,3,4) - this could be in a cute square shape – a little confused exactly what you mean, but fixed the auto-stack issue at (4,1)

Light Insane

• Light insane? A bit weird considering you don't have any normal insane (or are you gonna make one?) – renamed to Insane
  *00:14:496 (3,1) - a bit nazi but the overlap... – I'm sorry you dislike it.
  *00:27:427 (6) - from here on its a bit of a long slider only section, maybe you can change some of them into circles – vocals are too strong for me to not use sliders, not sure what I could do to address this.
  *00:33:289 (1) – finish – yes
  *00:39:496 (3,4,1,2,4,5) - the same problem as i mentioned in hard, but I think in insane its a bit more interesting if the player can keep on moving his mouse – same as Hard
  *00:56:651 (9,1) - stack it properly please ;; – this is intentional. The spacing difference is small enough that players can probably get it without changing what they're doing, and it trains them to think about emphasizing ¼ notes, which is good because the mapping meta seems like Extras will do ¼ jumps more frequently. If this isn't rankable, then only a BN will convince me.
  *01:02:082 (5,6,1) - why a triplet? I don't really hear anything in the music.. – ikr. There is actually a drum sound here even if it's feint. The me 2 years ago would not have mapped this, but I've been chewed out by BN's and respected mappers for not emphasizing those notes, so I acquiesced to their opinions.

Extra

• 
  *00:30:530 (1,2,1,2) - its a bit hard to read that (1,2) are close to each other, especially since you put them so far out – Don't know how to best address this, will certainly test stuff though
  *00:33:289 (1) - finish (I think you got tired of me saying this lol) – fixed
  *00:39:496 (3,4,1,2,4,5) - ehh if you didnt change this in hard/insane for some reason, at least change it here because you use so much jumps throughout the map, I don't see any point to stop jumps here – same as Hard
  *01:02:082 (5,6,1) - same as insane, don't see a reason to place a triplet here (btw modding this made me realise how similar hard/insane/extra are) – same as before (yeah I have the same mapping style as myself and had the same opinions of the music. Hope that's not a bad thing)
  *01:14:668 (1) - reverse it maybe, feels better to play for me at least – I don't share the opinion.
  *01:18:289 - ehh I don't see the point of making the stream shape so weirdly is it a reference or something that im missing? because if its not then you should really consider placing them in a normal curve – Is there anything wrong with it? I feel like the speedup and flow change express the increasing intensity of the stream and Extra players will appreciate not just a generic stream.

good luck!! – thanks for the mod!

hi-mei wrote:

hello...
since i cant really judge anything below 4* ill be modding the last 2 diffs

i played light insane and extra
light insane is really good, extra a bit overmapped in my opinion, rhythm and spacing wise

extra:
00:03:806 (4) - i think it shud be reverted to keep the flow, the jump between 00:03:461 (3,4) - is unnecessary, so if u ctrl+g (4) u will also have an emphasis for the 00:03:806 (4,1) - jump as well – nerfed the jump a bit

00:04:841 (2,6) - i missed 6 two times in a row, its really hard to read for some reason, can u make some slight overlap, for now its kinda meh – made an offset.
overlaps are good when justified
i think that is the case here.

00:10:186 (2,6) - either make an overlap or stack them, for now its ugly – now I'm confused what you mean by overlap and stack. What I did is I made them 4 off in the x direction and 4 off in the y direction which is giving them the same kind of offset an auto-stack does, which I don't think looks ugly.
00:10:875 (6,7) - i honestly dont hink that the spacing here shud be increasing, at least that much. its just too spaced even tho u can hear the increasing intensity on the background – I think (7) is a strong note, so a jump makes sense, but I am concerned about this pattern in general and will think about how to make its spacing better.
00:10:013 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - i also think that this stuff can be more structured, try to use hexagon or something, i dont really like that "flow-inclined" structure. – 00:10:358 (3,5,7) – makes a line, so it has some structure, and I think it looks fine.
00:11:220 (1,2) - ok so this stuff, it should be either like this 00:12:427 (1) - (that u are doing in each sound phrase next up) or you get rid of 00:12:427 (1,1,3) - and map stuff like 00:12:599 - which i prefer, cuz its an extra.
for now its a bit messy rhythm wise – ok so when modding, the most helpful thing you can do is to describe how you feel about the pattern. Telling me what to do is not helpful unless I understand the root of your concern, and even then it's only one of a few ideas I might be able to think of to address the concern (now if there is clearly a technique that I don't know of and that you're trying to teach me, then it's okay, but when you're dealing with a map where the mapper looks like they know what they're doing, assume a little more out of the mapper). For instance right now, I think you have an issue with the rhythm, but I don't understand why you are having an issue with it. Currently, 00:11:220 (1) – is there to go with the cymbal, then 00:11:565 (2) – is going with the trumpet, (3,4) are also trumpet notes, (5) is a circle to pick up the strong clap/drum sound since a sliderend would be a little weak, then the melody syncopates at 00:12:427 (1) - , so I put a long slider there to properly express the syncopated trumpet. At 00:13:806 (1) – etc, I'm going with the trumpets and ignoring the drum because I want to express the melody and the drum does not help me do that. I see one concern you had was that you prefer the drum, but since there is a target audience that likes the trumpets, I think what I have is a valid mapping choice. I can reconsider your issue with this if you can more clearly express your concern.
00:15:013 (4,2) - make them not stacked please, it really break the reading – made an offset
00:19:323 (1,3,1) - you can make it more structured i think, just copy them with angle scaling for 25* or something – a picture would help express the specifics of your suggestion more clearly, but these sliders are each a ~15 degree rotation of each other already. However, I want 00:20:703 (1) – to feel stronger than the others which is why it can't follow the structure that the previous sliders set up.
00:22:082 (5) - this stuff shud be ending here 00:22:341 - , the vocal starts on 00:22:427 - , you should fix this undermap. – I find 00:22:427 – to be very weak in the vocals, so even if there is a note, I don't feel like it's worth expressing.
00:36:910 (4,5,6) - spacing issue, the difference between 4,5 and 5,6 should be more tangible, for now its 10%, decrease the distance between 4,5 should be better – got it to be more like a 15% change now
00:38:117 (3) - this is a strong beat, it should be spaced more from 00:37:772 (2) - like u did here 00:38:634 (6,1) - – why do you feel this is a strong beat? Without this information, I can't really sympathize with your concern. I'm following the vocals for the most part, and having (3) be restful sets up the new vocal at (4).
00:39:151 (2,3) - ^ – yeah, I'm going with the vocals. I respect that this does not follow what you think the rhythm should be and thus you will not appreciate the map, but that doesn't mean it's bad, it's just geared at a different audience.
00:39:841 (5,1) - ^
00:40:530 (3,4) - ^
00:41:220 (6,2) - i dont feel like this overlap is good – I respect that opinion. I think it looks fine, and it's hard to keep the spirit of my intentions without overlapping, and I think it's rankable, so I'll leave it as is, but I understand what you mean.
00:41:910 (2,3,4,5) - reconsider spacing here – why? Current spacing is consistent with prioritizing vocals.
00:43:979 (6) - nc here to emphasze the new vocal phase, remove nc 00:44:323 (1) – then – (1) is the stronger vocal imo, so it should have the NC
01:02:599 (2,3,4,5,6,7) - i think spacing here is too wide, i mean huh, this song can not have such high spacing in first place, its calm and has not much to emphasize in terms of pitches. – I think the intended audience is more skilled than you're giving them credit, and they would find this acceptable, but I'll be sure to get more opinions on the spacing.
01:07:772 (1,2,3,4) - dude its too much xd
01:13:634 (2,3,4,5,6) - thats kiinda nice spacing wise, but i would make this structure better, i mean the gap between the 01:13:634 (2,3,5,7) - shud be the same – (2) and (7) are never on the screen at the same time, so most players won't notice any kind of structural issue with it. I agree that making (2,3,5,7) equidistant is better structurally, but doing so would mess with my DS, and since the current pattern's structural flaw does not present a real aesthetic issue, I think the pros of the flawed structure outweigh its cons.
01:17:772 (2,3) - plaase no, no that much – nerfed this one a bit
01:25:530 (1) - i dont think it shud have nc, 01:26:048 (2) - this shud be nc'ed. – I think it's reasonable either way, will get more opinions on this

uh also i think that this CS is kinda too har for such jumps. maybe lower it to 4.5 at least. it plays not that cool cause of this in first place. – I thought the map was bit easy with a lower CS. Current CS seems fine for my intended audience, but again, it's good to have your feedback even if I reject it because it lets me gauge the community.

light insane:
this one is much better in my opinion
00:18:461 (2,3,4,5,6) - i think u can apply some pattern here, it seems not that good structure wise – I think it's structure is already quite good, good enough to get ranked, but since I want a super easy time getting ranked, I'll change it.
00:25:702 (4,5,6) - these are the strong beats, i dont understand why u decided to not emphasize them – I want this section to feel weak, so there's very little I emphasize. I'm more of a vocals guy anyway. I'm partial to the idea of adding kick hitsounds here, but I suck at hitsounds, so if you want to help me out with them (*cough* do them for me *cough*) then I'd consider doing that (though no guarantees).
00:27:082 (4,5,6) - ^
01:02:082 (5,6,1) - cmon dude stack them, its ugly – I disagree
01:24:151 (1) - nuke this slider, just make it as normal sliders like u did before in the whole diff – There's some precedence for a funky slider at 00:05:703 (1) - . The reason I made it like this is to more easily control the position/flow of the following objects since a normal slider runs me too close to the edge. I could see me changing this in the future though.
01:25:186 (7,8) - i think its a mistake in terms of rhythm, you got a strong sound on
http://puu.sh/uS7MS/c958818c5d.jpg try this, the 01:25:530 (1) - should be blanket to 01:26:048 (2) - i think. – I don't understand why it's a mistake. The rhythm you suggested has clicks everywhere that the current rhythm has, and I believe the current pattern's slider ends express weaker notes in a better way (for instance, there is no beat at 01:25:703 - ).

alright thats it gl – thanks for the mod!

newton- wrote:

from modreqs
tried not to be nitpicky about minor aesthetics things -- I'd be quite happy to receive feedback like that. One of the issues I always have is that I feel like my maps aren't quite polished, like there's some slight improvement to the aesthetics I could do.
[general]

1. fix the "background image is larger than 1336x768" problem you have on all diffs – rules changed, you can have BG's of 1920 x 1200.
2. disable widescreen support – I have a video though, don't I need widescreen support?

[normal]

1. 00:19:324 (1,2,3) - these 3 objects break the 1x distance snap previously established – I succ
2. 01:00:186 (6) - "this object is too far from the previous object!" (also, 1/2 beats here are established as overlapping or stacked, so by not overlapping or stacking this with the previous beat, you're being inconsistent) – at mapping

[hard]

1. 00:03:806 (3) - ctrl+g for more comfortable flow here – flow is very circular and jump is intentional.
2. 00:54:496 (3) - make the sliderend of this the same distance from 2 as 1's sliderend is, would look better imo (just move 2 down a bit lol) – for spacing/emphasis reasons, I'd rather not, and the current structure is to maintain the visual DS with 00:53:634 (5,2,3) -
3. 00:55:358 (1) - ctrl+g for comfortable flow and spacing emphasis for the loud vocal – there's already a slight jump, I think this is the right level of emphasis, I don't want to go too overboard.

[insane]

1. 00:56:048 (2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - would be more appropriate as a stream imo, since stacks longer than 5 notes aren't really seen as much anymore. if you do want to stack it though, blanket it using 00:55:358 (1) – I feel like if I put a tiny bit of DS between these notes you wouldn't complain, and there isn't much difference between what that is and what it is currently. However, if one more person points this out, I will make exactly that change. The pattern currently blankets (1) though.
2. 01:18:289 (4) - too high up, touches hp bar – not on my screen. Show me what you see

[extra]

1. nerf cs pls, high cs + high spacing = painful to aim – this map is intended for an audience who likes big jumps.
2. 00:42:599 (5) - triangle with 00:41:910 (2,3) – don't want to make an equilateral triangle for DS reasons. Current structure looks mostly good.
3. 00:48:461 (1,3) - bit too high imo – on the screen? it's fine. Not sure what else you could mean by high.

solid map, can't find much wrong with it in the way of gameplay. good luck! – thanks for the mod!

Kujinn wrote:

M4M ~

[Extra]

1. For CS4.8 Sliders are really long, made it kind of difficult during gameplay. I recommend lowering Slider Velocity to 1.8. – CS and SV are intended for an audience skilled at big jumps.
2. Insane is also OD8, Maybe increase Extra to 8.2-8.5 or lower Insane to 7.5 – made 8.4
3. 00:10:530 (4,5,6,7) - I feel like jumps don't really work here. Maybe a 1/2 slider here 00:10:530 - following up with a stream ending 00:11:134 – I like the words 'I feel ____ ' when reading mods. It lets me gauge your reaction, and by understanding your reaction, I can change the pattern to address the concern. However, you gave me your conclusion of the problem, not the actual problem itself. I still don't understand the reaction that caused you to feel like jumps don't work. That's the kind of feedback that is most helpful when modding. I'm left to speculate that maybe it's because you thought the map was more intense than the song, but then why suggest a stream? I tried some other things to do, but what I have now worked the best.
4. 00:13:806 (1,3,1) - It would be nice if at least one of these sliders were place horizontally – Can you explain what about the song/map makes you feel this way? I don't understand what goal it accomplishes to make this change.
5. 00:19:323 (1,3) – Overlap – I don't think this is a bad looking pattern. Overlaps like this are frequently ranked (see https://osu.ppy.sh/b/1110281 highest diff, https://osu.ppy.sh/b/1083458 sonnyc's diff). I don't see why this pattern holds the map back.
6. 00:30:530 (1,2,1,2) - slider head on 00:30:875 (2) - should be touching or somewhat close to 00:30:530 (1) - slider end. Other wise, it would be confusing and appear as if there was a 1/2 gap between these two. – I'm trying to find a solution that feels energetic while also readable. I tried nerfing the spacing, but I'm expecting to change this pattern up somehow, just don't know how.
7. 00:34:668 (1,2) - overlap
8. Why is it that 00:33:289 - has a slider velocity of x1 and 00:22:599 - has x0.9? Music hasn't changed at all. – I'm glad you asked! This change has everything to do with the [url]pacing[/url] of the map. At 00:22:599 - , the music goes from an intense section to a weak section. The player is taking a slow journey through the song here as they rest after a somewhat engaging introduction. Then at 00:30:530 - , the player is hit with a burst of energy, revitalizing their engagement and encouraging them to try harder in the map. Their baseline of engagement so to speak has increased after the exciting section of 00:30:530 - , so the map too should increase the baseline of engagement. This keeps the players from reverting to a more rest section of the map like 00:22:599 – was so that the map keeps building into the chorus.
9. 01:17:082 (6,1) - huge jump, bring it down a bit? – I got kind of bored playing some of the stuff before it just now, and this jump made it feel more challenging and engaging. That's the point behind most of this spacing. Strong note in the vocals supports it.
   
   This diff needs a lot of work tbh, – I'm fine with you having that opinion, but I didn't get enough out of your mod to work on. None of your suggestions seemed to indicate any major underlying issues with the map. I don't see how to apply your critiques across the map. I'm not even sure what you dislike about the map besides overlaps. Is it the aesthetics? The spacing? The flow? The composition? The pacing? I wish I knew.

[Insane]

1. 00:08:979 (2) - you could give it some shape so it doesn't appear so long. – It goes well with the slider before it, so I think it's fine
2. 00:14:496 (3,1) - overlap, place 00:14:496 (3) - at x280 y208 – that position overlaps (2). If I have this pattern, it's going to have an overlap, and I think that's ok.
3. 00:20:703 (1) - 00:20:703 (1) - you could emphasize this more by giving it a different shape or ctrl g – I'll think about it, but nothing exciting is popping out to me now.
4. 00:22:082 (5) - The sound ends here 00:22:254 - – so I end the slider there and leave a 1/1 pause? Seems awkward, having a 1/1 slider seems better
5. 00:44:841 (2,1,2) – overlap – I'm sorry you don't like overlaps, but this one in particular I'm very proud of.
6. 00:47:082 (1,2) - ^
7. 00:55:358 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,1) – blanket? – It's currently blanketed. Go to View → stacking to see for yourself.

[Hard]

1. 00:05:703 (1,1) - give it a shape so it doesn't appear so large. – this is the shape. It's not fancy, but I feel like it's a valid shape to use.
2. 00:25:358 (2,3) - ctrl g, this should be the rhythm (Without the hitsounds0 – I prefer going with the drum

Normal & Easy looks fine to me

Good Luck! – thanks for the mod!

-NanoRIPE- wrote:

love live better than imas – They're both garbage
#run

n
00:10:186 (3) - 1/2 reverse slider here? for emphatize the vocal on red tick – mayyybe.... I don't want to make the introduction that strong, but I'm probably going to change something about this.
00:56:910 - circle here? or 1/2 slider here? the intrument looks strong here,why you dont map it? – I've already got complaints that this rhythm is too complicated, I don't think I can afford to hit any more strong notes.
01:00:186 (6) - ds lol – I succ at mapping
01:26:048 (1) - would be nice if you put circle here and move the spinner on the red tick – thanks for the feedback, was wondering if I would get any comments on this given that the Easy and Normal are different. Still taking this poll though so no change yet.

Gl – thanks for the mod!

iYiyo wrote:

hello o/ sorry for late ;w; – don't worry about it

• 
  [general]

1. disable widescreen supp on every diff – I'll do it later
2. Since Extra has a different BG, I think NC looks good as how it's right now – Nice
3. convert the .png images into .jpg so the size get considerably reduced. – k
   
   [Extra]
4. 00:03:461 (3,4) - I see you wanted to give a bit of emphasize here because of vocals, but right now it feels waaay too high imo. considering reducing DS a bit. Rn feels like kiai DS xd. – sigh, nerfed
5. 00:30:530 (1,1) - Idk but it feels too flat. Maybe you could add some shape for those sliders? – The straight shape goes really well with the video imo.
6. 00:32:427 (3,5) - better stack? – I like having offsets on my stacks to make it more readable.
7. 00:42:254 (3,4,5) - maybe make the have same distance to each other? Not in timeline, but in the grid itself. – The jump into (5) is intentional to express the vocal. I feel like the structure is fine because (2,3,5) are the same DS so it still forms a triangle and (2,3,4,5) forms a kite.
8. 01:08:461 (5) - Maybe move this slider a bit to the left so the DS keep consistent? Right now feels too close to the next slider compared to the rest kiai section. https://puu.sh/uWXGC/fbe9f3f894.jpg – Adjusted, but not nearly that much. This pattern is intentionally restful.
9. 01:17:082 (6,1) - ouch. This distance is huge dude :d From what I hear in the music, it has same vocal emphasis as 01:17:944 - but the DS is way too different. Consider reducing 01:17:082 (6,1) - so it's a bit similar to 01:17:772 (2,3) – I find (6,1) to be significantly stronger than (2,3) (It's a downbeat after all), but I did nerf (6,1) a tiny bit
   
   IMO this diff could get better in terms of structure. Right now some DS feels a bit random? Idk but on Insane and the rest of the diffs, notes seems to be placed with more logic :d For example 00:10:013 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - these jumps (specially 00:10:703 (5,6,7) - these) doesn't have a consistent DS and seems randomly placed. There're a few more but overall they aren't a real issue i think xd. – I feel like I can defend the position of every note in some way. This kind of comment makes sense, my maps don't look like current ranked maps because I disagree with a few principles of certain maps and in a few places the aesthetics suffer not in the sense that they're bad but that they aren't show-stopping ly amazing everywhere. I still hate this kind of comment since I don't really have anything to work on to address these issues, so I hope BN's find it as minor as you do.
   
   [Insane]
10. 00:47:599 (2) - Instead of overlapping this straight sliders in this way, I expected some curve slider like 00:44:841 (2,2) - those so yeah, maybe curve it a bit. – the intention was that by using a different flow/shape, it puts emphasis on this strong vocals. Tbh, you're suggestion has a lot of merit, it's just that putting a curve here would make me remap all this for what feels like a marginal/subjective gain.
    
    nice diff – nice
    
    [Normal]
11. 01:28:806 (1,1,2,3,4,5) - ¿? O.o – I succ at mapping.
    
    hard and easy looks fine :d

Sorry for shitmod but couldn't find many "wrong" things. Hope it helps. GL! O/ – thanks for the mod!

Gaia wrote:

[nm]
check ur ds in aimod – I succ at mapping
00:08:289 (1) - consider changing this to a slider, there's a held vocal here – I don't know where to put a sliderend without making it feel too much, so I prefer circle
00:15:875 (4) - try 3 circles? a break inbetween a slidertrain is important for normals imo -- did circle --> slider to avoid too many 1/2 notes
00:33:289 (1) – finish – fixed
00:57:082 (2,3,4,5) - change to 2 sliders? these are kinda hard – made 00:57:254 (3) – into a 1/1 slider so that 00:57:771 – is clickable.
01:14:668 (1) - try angling this more horizontally so it's not too cramped http://puu.sh/uY41O/ab83b66006.jpg – fixed.

[hd]
00:28:117 (2) - overlap isnt that great – I think it's fine.
00:51:910 (3,4,5,6) - mm dont really fit the music imo, sliders would be fine here, or replace (4,5) with a slider to emphasize vocals – good suggestion
01:03:634 (1) - has a weird angle here, move this up for better flow? – you are right, but if I do then I overlap with 01:02:944 (4,1) – and I'm worried about the aesthetic of that. Remapped this pattern cuz that's what I needed to do.
01:05:358 (2,3) - since you've been following vocals try this? -- nice
01:18:289 (4,5,6) - since this hard is slightly too hard for ur spread i'd recommend changing this to 1/4 repeat – Earlier in the diff I use 1/4 notes so it's hard not to use them now, though I will look into removing all 1/4 notes and what to do about spread.
01:25:186 (4) - clap on the end – fixed.

[ins]
00:19:151 (6) - doesnt really flow well, try moving this up and left more – -- did something else
00:25:358 (2,3) - should be sliders imo – yeah that makes sense
00:26:737 (2,3) - ^ to emphasize the bell sound – there's a bell sound on (3) so I want a circle there
00:47:599 (2) - doesnt flow well – It's intentional for the flow to strain the player. I think the vocal is strong there and want to emphasize it.
00:56:048 (2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,1) - awkward overlap? i'd suggest dropping the blanket idea altogether tbh (or space the stream out) – If I see one more person suggest it sure.
01:02:772 (3,4,5,6,7) - these jumps dont really make sense to me, just space them all equally would be better i think – Big DS = strong note in the vocals. If you want me to give more of my perspective you can find me in game
01:07:427 (4) - doesnt follow ur previous slider pattern – it kind of does. What it loses in spacing it gains in curvature making the spiraling counterclockwise flow just a tighter flow of the same thing which I think represents the decreasing intensity.
01:08:806 (6) - space this further for better emphasis – a tiny bit, but this is intentionally restful. The lyrics before it are the primary focus of engagement, not the drums
01:25:530 (1) - ending this on the blue tick is rly weird , circle is enough i think – In the song, there's a drum beat at 01:25:617 – and I don't want to get accused of under-mapping.
01:24:668 (2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - sounds overmapped to me – listen to the new harmony better.

[extra]
colours r different not sure if intentional but if it is the inconsistency is kinda weird -- intentional because different BG
00:32:254 (2) - 00:32:772 (4) – claps? – it doesn't feel like the drum is that active here, though I'm willing to be overruled in the future.
00:35:013 (2) - too close here, looks rly like a ¼ – thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have not received similar feedback from anyone, but this plants the seed for when/if they do.
00:36:392 (2) - same here too, try making a nice triangle http://puu.sh/uY4IJ/104477182b.jpg – ^
00:43:461 (4) - jump's a bit big, move this up more? – the intention is to increase the intensity of the map here, but I'll keep an eye on it when testing though.
00:48:979 (2) - curve this left more for better flow – I think I understand you, though pic would've helped more
01:06:392 (1,2,3,4) - should have more consistency i think – Everyone's complaining about this pattern, so no matter how much I like it, I guess I should change. Just wish I shared this perspective at all.
01:08:461 (5,6) - too close for notes with a crash cymbal – I'll make it a bit bigger, but I don't want to give up the intention. These crashes are not the primary source of engagement.
01:16:910 (5,6,1) - spacing difference too big – I find this to be the right intensity but will keep an eye on it.
01:22:772 (1,2,3) - ^ – ^
01:24:668 (2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1) - same as insane – ^

glhf – thanks for the mod!

Kami-senpai wrote:

m4m cuz you asked

[Normal]
00:13:289 (5) - Maybe tilt this more to the left so you can get better connecting flow between 00:12:944 (4,1) - these two – Keeping a good aesthetic by being parallel with 00:12:427 (3,1) – is way way way more important. This kind of flow change is just too negligible.

00:18:806 (5) - Same, but maybe tilt to the right some more – did a little bit

00:39:840 (3,4) - Looks kinda sharp and odd looking, maybe tilt 4 up a bit – this is an interesting example where the aesthetic of parallel circles/lines fails.

00:43:289 (5) - Maybe use a 1/2 repeating slider to map to the sound? Right now, it's the same shape as 00:42:772 (4) - , while they have clearly different sounds, so either change the shape or change the rhythm – I like it

00:57:599 (4,5) - Since this is also different from 00:57:082 (2,3) - , maybe consider making it a 1/2 slider instead of two circles – The strong drum at 00:57:771 (5) – really wants to be clickable, so I went circle --> 1/1 slider --> circle and I think it works

01:16:910 (4) - Maybe make it 1/2 slider to map to the held vocals – then you have a sliderend on a beat that is barely emphasized in the song and I don't want to increase the intensity anyway.

01:22:772 (1,2,3) - Nice heart – thanks

Not too good at modding Normal so sorry

[Hard]

00:02:944 (1,2) - blanket could be better. Maybe make 00:03:461 (2) - concave in the opposite direction, like so: – current concavity sets up a better expectation of the flow. Kind of fixed blanket

00:05:013 (3,4) - In my opinion, these are more emphasized in terms of the music than 00:03:461 (2,3) - , yet both the distance and the flow is more difficult in the first two. I strongly suggest changing one of them, either by ctrl-g 00:03:806 (3) - this, or changing the positioning and shape of 00:05:358 (4) – I disagree, I feel like 00:03:806 (3) – is the stronger note because of the strong vocal here, which is the intention behind the jump. The DS is the way it is to make the aesthetics work. I understand your perspective though.

00:12:944 (2,1) - Stack properly – editor sucks

00:12:944 (2,3,4) - You seem to keep the majority of the jumps distance snapped, so make sure that they are indeed equal distances unless when you're doing emphasis – my mistake, didn't even want jumps here.

00:25:358 (2) - You normally map to the vocals, but there's a syllable that starts on the red tick in the middle that you just completely missed. Consider making a clickable circle at 00:25:358 - and a 1/2 slider starting at 00:25:530 – That's what I started with, but then I changed it to this. You can see the original version here: http://puu.sh/uYj46/ca1affd2fc.osu . I had the philosophy you're suggesting of acknowledging every vocal sound. It plays very same-y. There's so much ½ rhythm that it just gets dull after a while. I like the current rhythm because the moments of rest like this 1/1 slider help to make the stronger ½ rhythms worth being ½.

00:27:427 (5,1,2) - Instead of such a huge distance between 1 and 2, I would put more distance between 5 and 1 instead because that is when a new musical statement starts. 1 is the true down beat to the song, not 2 – You acknowledged that I'm going with the vocals, and the vocals are at (2), so (2) is the true down beat.

00:33:634 (2,3,4,5) - I don't like this flow too much. The majority of your map is generally circular so having such a sharp linear zig zag flow throws me off -- I think it's fine

00:42:772 (1) - Make slider head a circle and have the slider start on the big white tick. Right now, you are making the held vocal note start on a slider end, which is a huge rhythm error if you're mapping to vocals – the vocal starts where the slider head currently is and not on the big white tick.

00:51:220 (1,2) - Since these are rhythmically and musically similar to 00:50:530 (3,4) - , I would try to do the same type of back and forth flow, rather than the circular/linear kind you got going on now – I'm trying to make it similar to 00:49:841 (1,2) - . If I make all 6 of these slider feel the same I think the map becomes more repetitive than the song.

01:05:703 (3,4,5) - I think flow and emphasis can be improved by doing this:
This way, 3 and 4, which map to the emphasized two 1/2 note upbeat, change flow from 01:05:703 (3) - and 01:06:220 (5,1) - This distance is bigger for more emphasis –changed some stuff and incorporate your idea a tiny bit. I like the flow you suggested but not the overlap

[Insane]

00:05:186 (4,5,6) - Aesthetically, this is weird because it is not a perfect triangle, which makes it look sloppy and unpolished. In terms of emphasis, it also is sort of misleading. Changing the jump distance so much from 00:04:841 (2,3) - indicates that there is a huge change in the musical emphasis as well, which there isn't. I would make this jump bigger. I see what you're trying to do with the trapezoid and all, but it just doesn't properly fit the music – The pattern is currently very very structured. I think you should be less strict about the equilateral triangle and see the forest for the trees. The spacing goes with the pitch changes enough in the vocals and sets up the pattern nicely.

00:20:531 (4,1) - If you're following the same jump flow pattern as 00:19:323 (1,2,3) - , then 00:20:703 (1) - should be ctrl-g'd – I agree my spacing isn't ideal. The reason I can't nerf 00:19:323 (1,2,3) – to fall in a better pattern is because the visual spacing between (1,2) should be the same as (2,3). The correct thing to do is to find a pattern that incorporates a nicer jump pattern while also looking good, but it feels bad to lose out on this nice flow, and I'm willing to gamble that a BN won't be strict enough to favor DS's over aesthetics.

00:25:530 (3,4) - If you want to map to vocals like you have been, these would be better off as a 1/2 slider to map to the held vocal note – did something else

00:26:392 (1) - Maybe ctrl-j this. Flow doesn't seem too good for a nice quiet part in the song – the intention is to change the flow to go with the strong bell on the downbeat, and I like the current level of intensity.

00:32:427 (3,4) - Flow seems almost too good for an emphasized part of the song. Could be significantly fixed by doing something like this: – I'm not entirely sure what you mean by too good and how that makes you feel that makes you want to prompt a change. One reason I like the current flow is because it changes the clockwise flow into counterclockwise flow, and I find this change in flow to be expressive.

It flows well into the next triple as well

00:55:013 (6,7) - maybe make this the same distance of a jump as 00:54:323 (2,3) - ? It would add a good spice to the jumps and also make it more fun – I'm faced with a bit of a dilemma here. (7) is a strong note in the trumpet, but (1) is a strong note in the vocals. My fear is that if I emphasize both, only the trumpet will feel strong, and then the transition to a new track of music feels too intense into (1) and not very expressive of it. If I keep it as is though, I run into exactly your fear of not emphasizing the nice trumpet sound making it not so spicy. I wish the osu gods would descend down and give me the right answer, but since that isn't happening, I'll wait for more opinions on this before changing.

01:06:048 (5,6) - These notes are more emphasized with vocals, yet they are smaller distance than jumps like 01:05:358 (2,3) - these. Please consider altering a bit – fixed

For this diff, you could do well to consider spacing emphasis more. -- you might be on to something

[Extra]
Nice bg. Maybe make a custom diff name to match the different image – good idea, let me try this one.

00:16:737 (1,2) - Different sounds so maybe different slider shapes would work better – changing the flow is enough to differentiate them for me, and for aesthetics I like to keep generally similar sliders.

00:19:323 (1,3) - I see what you're trying to do, but I think it would look better if you didn't overlap them like this. One reason is because it's not a recurring theme or idea in your map – I've set up a decent amount of ovelaps and stacks in this section that I don't like your reasoning, but almost everyone hates these overlaps. I feel like it's foolish of me not to change it given such a consensus by the community, but I'm frustrated that a fair amount of ranked maps can get away with this and I can't. I expect to change this eventually.

00:38:289 (4,5,6) - Again with spacing emphasis. These are much smaller than 00:38:117 (3,4) - this jump, even if there are no notable emphasized notes in between those two circles. – I find the start of the vocal to be a stronger note. It feels expressive to me to differentiate the rhythm of 00:37:772 (2,3) – from the rhythm of 00:38:289 (4,5,6) -

00:56:737 (1) - I would keep this in line with the rest of the stream. It's fine to space it out more than the others, but your placement here currently looks really sloppy – You're right that a normal stream looks better, but the bend doesn't look that bad and the emphasis on this note is nice so I don't want to change.

01:05:530 (3,4) - It would be better to make this so its slider-circle instead of circle-slider to fit vocals better – I don't want to go with the vocals here because the vocal on (3) is kind of weak. Instead, the trumpet on (4) sounds kind of strong, so I'd like to emphasize that. Additionally, 01:05:875 – isn't a beat in the song so I don't want to put a circle there.

01:06:392 (1,2,3,4) - I would make this a proper circle, like this: – I like it as is, but I'll think about it.
where 3 is just a copy paste, ctrl h ctrl j of 1. This way flow is much more consistent and you don't have a circle with a fourth missing

01:07:082 (3,1,5) - Consider aesthetics when you map the jumps. You don't want to just randomly place notes that seem to emphasize the song, but end up creating really sloppy looking overlaps or irregular shapes. For example, you could potentially make 01:07:772 (1,2,3,4) - into a perfect trapezoid like so: – such in your face symmetry isn't really a theme of the map and would kind of look out of palce. By having an offset, I retain most of the structure by making (1,2) and (3,4) parallel. I think this pattern looks fine.

01:08:461 (5,6) - The distance here is so small compared to 01:07:772 (1,2,3,4) - these jumps. In my opinion, these are more emphasized than the vocal part before it and deserves a much bigger jump than this – I disagree with your perspective. I think think the vocals are stronger than the finishes and want some amount of rest on the finishes.

01:10:702 (2,3,4) - Why the sudden decrease in distance? Before in similar parts it was bigger. – (3) is the strongest vocal. The singer isn't always the same each measure she sings. The most similar part of music I can find is at 00:59:668 (2,3,4) – which is spaced the same way.

01:13:979 (4,5,6,7) - Again, consider where the emphasis is. 01:13:634 (2,3) - these are the biggest jumps, but I think most people would agree that the "meat" of the musical statement is 01:13:979 (4,5,6,7) - these four, so why make them smaller? – 01:13:806 (3,4) – is the strongest spacing which emphasizes the strongest note at (4), and from there the intensity of the song and spacing decrease.

01:18:289 (4,5,6,7,8,9,1) - Could space these streams out more. Now they seem way too small for such a huge jump 01:17:772 (2,3) - here, and it's fairly linear too, which means that you carry the momentum and inertia of the slider into the stream. You'll want to space them out more so your cursor doesn't suddenly have to slow down to accomodate for smaller spacing – stream plays fine to me, I feel like it has the right intensity. This map is weighted towards players who are better at jumps than at streams.

Overall, I think that you can take into consideration the music more. Right now, especially in the kiai section, you have a lot of jumps that you don't seem to use to emphasize the music at all. It wouldn't hurt to think about pitch either and try to map to that if you can. – Every note and and every jump I made was to express the music (primarily the vocals). I'm sorry you disagree with my perspective. I think you make good points, explained your concerns and opinions well, and if you were in charge you would make a nice difficulty for the audience who shares your perspective.

Another big thing about this diff is aesthetics. With so many jumps, it becomes really easy for them to start looking random. If you keep this in mind while mapping, you'll be able to see lots of opportunities for new stacks, overlaps, or geometric shapes within the map that you can use to make it look prettier and fit the music better as well – I feel like I do a pretty good job on structure, though I'm happy to have more feedback on it.

good luck! – thanks for the mod! While at times we disagree, I really appreciate you giving a detailed and honest perspective and am happy to have read it.

Sotarks wrote:

since when you're a fokin weeb xd
k let's go m4m

Idol
00:04:151 (1) - pls make this shape more even? – good idea and did the other one.

00:30:186 (4) - i want to see more spacing for this clap+vocal rythmn dude! – no

00:47:599 (2) - check stack – fixed

01:16:565 (4,5,6) - move this pattern more upward pls too much spacing – emphasize

01:17:254 (1) - and this one less spacing and shape more even pls haha – the

01:17:944 (3) - dude whats wrong with your spacing? – melody

a bit worried about extra's design but w/e – would be nice to explain why
[]
Insane
00:12:944 (2,3) - this could be a 1/2 slider instead tbh – I think it's fine

00:22:082 (5) - hey hey what have u done here, you skip this high down beat, please don't ignore that.. – you're crazy, there's no beat here.

00:26:737 (2,3) - 1/2 slider ? – no

00:49:496 (4) - ctrl g could be fun – dude you're right. Not sure how to make the rest of the pattern but I'll play around with this.

00:56:048 (2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,1) - this is horrible dude haha becuase 1) the overlap is ugly, and 2) the stream stack is really lame to play and easily missreaded
i would highly suggest you to unstack the stream, and keep this pattern clean.. – play the map when you mod it

otherwise cool diff!
[]
hard
01:13:117 (1) - pls don't skip the high down beat here.. : ( – syncopates
01:13:117 (1,1) - ^
nice hard!
[]
other diffs are cool! can't find anything – I don't think you played them. Easy would have been nice to have a mod on.
Gl – I'm disappointed that you spent less than 10 min on this mod since I could use more help, but thanks for the mod.

Ohwow wrote:

from my M4M

[Normal]
00:08:289 (1) - Not too big a problem, but i feel like this should be a 3/2 slider. – I've been hearing similar sentiments, but I don't really know where to put the slider end. The slider end makes it just feel odd, which isn't worth the pros of having a slider
00:56:737 - Make 00:55:358 (1) - end 1/2 tick earlier and put a 1/2 repeating slider? – slider end would be really funky, I think it's fine as is
01:23:461 (2) - slider is too curvy imo, maybe just delete the gray nodes next to the red node: https://i.gyazo.com/042a94d088a1b4f7787 ... 0c9258.jpg – I think it's fine

[Hard]
00:54:323 (2,3) - visual spacing too small? – point was to make visual spacing with 00:53:634 (5,3) – the same, but I changed the visual spacing with (3,4) so that the pattern looks better
01:00:186 (4,5,6,1) - could make a clean rhombus shape/pattern here. – the reason I don't want to do that is because then the spacing between 01:00:703 (6,1) – would have to be absolutely huge, and I don't think that's appropriate for a Hard.
01:03:462 (6) - fix spacing. Too close to 01:02:944 (4) - visual wise, and too far from 01:03:634 (1) . Place it at x426 y105 – fixed


[Insane]
00:04:841 (2,3,4,5,6) - few problems with this pattern imo. 00:04:841 (2,3,4) - Spacing is really far and 00:05:186 (4,5,6,1) - is really small, but the music doesn't change too drastically. Also, aesthetically, 00:05:186 (4,5) - is too close to each other such that 00:05:186 (4,5,6) - is not a perfect triangle. – aesthetics are fine here. I do agree with the spacing concern that the DS changes are too exagerated, but the aesthetics make it work and that's what BN's care about.
00:13:117 (3) - weak note, make 00:12:944 (2,3) - into a slider possibly? – I think it's fine
00:14:496 (3,1) - I think you can avoid this overlap by moving 00:15:186 (1) - to the right a bit – yeah fixed
00:44:323 (1,2) - I'm curious on why you stacked the sliderends here but not at 00:45:703 (1,2) - – Looks good this way, was really happy to repeat a slider the player already saw before, though your way works well as well
01:13:117 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,1) - This could be a perfect hexagon pattern – It's fine as two trapezoids. Hexagons really limit DS's and this looks just as good.

[Idol]
00:03:461 (3,4) - I feel like spacing is too big here compared to the rest. – the intention is to emphasize the singer, but I made some changes to address this.
00:47:082 (1,2) - could stack better -- fixed these both
01:02:945 (4,1) - stack?
01:03:461 (7,1) - I think this is the most appropriate use of your large spacing since the sound on 01:03:634 (1) - is very loud and distinct. Although I'd still tune it down just a bity. – Big spacing is intentional
01:05:530 (3,4) - big spacing
01:06:220 (6) - ^
01:17:082 (6,1) - big spacing again. I get you're trying to emphasize the intense parts but it's shouldn't too big. The intensity of the music doesn't change by that much. If you really want to keep that spacing, at least increase spacing between 01:16:910 (5,6) - – addressed this a little bit

gl

Mir wrote:

Hi M4M return.

[ General]

1. Your slider track and slider border isn't consistent throughout the difficulties? – working on it

[ Normal]

1. 01:02:082 (4) - Moving this up a bit would make the square a bit nicer. – tried a bit

Other than that this diff seems fine to me.

[ Hard]

1. 00:46:737 (3) - Seems like two distinct vocal notes that can be mapped with circles here. Would make the rhythm a bit more interesting imo. // 00:48:117 (3) - – I think it's more interesting as a slider. I want this part to feel calm to give contrast that this is a calm part of the song. This makes more intense parts of the song feel more intense.
   
2. 00:53:979 (1,2,3) - This flow is quite awkward to play imo and the visual distance is a bit meh. I would do this instead. The reason this is awkward is because there's nothing too strong in the song to really call for this. – The intention in the flow is to reflect the high pitch change of the trumpet, but thank you for the feedback, I'll see how other players react to this pattern and adjust.
   
3. 00:57:599 (1,2) - Is weaker than the square but has the same spacing as the square. Maybe you can increase the spacing of the square. – I completely agree on the intention. My biggest worry though is that square patterns can be tricky to do, so I don't want to make this too intense. I did increase the square a little, but it was a very conservative increase.
   
4. 01:04:323 (3,4,5) - Actually ctrl+g'ing this makes more sense to me because the note on 01:04:496 - is less audible than the one on 01:04:841. – they both have the same strength to me. I think current rhythm plays nicer off the 1/1 slider
   
5. 01:13:807 (3,4,5) - Visual distance could be improved. – fixed

[ Insane]

1. 00:05:359 (5,6,1) - This flow is quite forced imo, 00:05:359 (5,6) - ctrl+g these placements and it would flow better imo. -- tested it out, I liked what I had more
   
2. 00:05:703 (1,1) - These actually look out of place because one would expect another one in the bottom right, but there is none lol. Feels like an incomplete pattern. – Overall I think it's fine. Music changes so pattern changes.
   
3. 00:10:875 (6,7) - Ctrl+G this placement would actually play nicer imo and the emphasis would be the same. Up to you tho. – I prefer not going in a circle too much
   
4. 00:12:944 (2,4,6) - Could space evenly. – I took 00:12:944 (2,4) - , ctrl shift S by .5, then stacked it accordingly and that's where 6 is.
   
5. 00:16:220 (4,5) - Why not another 1/2 slider here? The trumpet is still going. You even still did it at 00:21:393 (3,4). -- tested it out. Both patterns play fine so it's really just a toss up. I've been chewed out for not emphasizing strong harmony notes like that clap on (4), so I'll keep it.
   
6. 00:52:082 (4,5,6) - Would make sense to emphasize these notes more with higher spacing. – they do have higher spacing relative to 00:50:530 (3,4,5,6) -
   
7. 01:21:048 (4,1) - Ow blanket. Xd – fixed

[ Idol]

1. 00:10:013 (1,2,3) - Making this symmetrical in relation to 00:08:979 (2) - would look nicer. – The DS into (2) has to be bigger than the DS into (3) to reflect the singer, so I'll try a different aesthetic.
   
2. 00:29:151 (1,2,3,4) - Isn't symmetrical. ;w; – I think it's fine
   
3. 00:44:841 (2) - ^ – fixed, though I might change it back because this section is kind of weird, so being not symmetrical expresses that weirdness.
   
4. 00:47:082 (1,2) - Nice stack. Xd – fixed
   
5. 00:51:910 (3,4,5,6) - I think you should use spacing equivalent to this because it's the buildup section. Spacing like 00:53:289 (3,4,5) - doesn't really make much sense after 00:51:910 (3,4,5,6) - big spacing like this. 00:52:427 (6,1) - Also this flows really awkwardly because you force a slowdown in a section that is building UP. I recommend changing the flow here a bit since atm it plays extremely weird. – I would say the primary instument at 00:52:944 (2) – is the trumpets. I would say the trumpets are not as excited as the vocals were at 00:51:910 (3) - . They have to do their build up too before they can go crazy. Also, if I build up the trumpets linearly off the vocals, then I have a build up section so strong it rivals the chorus of the song, and that's not what a build up section should do. I like my pacing, I know it's different form current ranked maps, and it's that way because I think it's better this way.
   
6. 00:57:772 (2,1) - This a bit overkill with spacing imo, might want to move 2 closer. – no
   
7. 01:01:392 (3,4) - These also play really awkwardly because of slider slow down and because they emphasize weak sounds it feels inappropriate imo. Goes for pretty much all of these in the kiai time. – goes really well with the singer. That's kind of the intention of the kiai.
   
8. 01:02:945 (4,1) – Stack. – fixed
   
9. 01:13:634 (2) - Imo should be emphasized differently because atm it's part of a pattern that focuses on vocals but has no vocal sound on it. – it's emphasis in flow and spacing seem to make sense to me. I can see that point being valid in the aesthetics, but the aesthetics are good because (2) is with them, so I think it's fine.
   
10. 01:17:944 (3,4,5,6,7,8,9,1) - This is such a massive flow break it just plays really harsh. If you ctrl+h this it would play infinitely better. – they both have their pros and cons, I kind of like it as is.

Nothing much else to say that isn't subjective. Good luck with this.~ – thanks for the mod!

Shiratoi wrote:

hello! return m4m

[normal]
00:06:910 (2,2) - slider bodies overlap so it might be a little hard to read since the second slider is still visible when youre clicking the note – the overlap happens very briefly and there's a 5/2 gap into the second (2) slider, so I don't see this as being hugely problematic.
00:08:979 (2) - end this slider on the red tick then add a note on the downbeat? since its the more prominent sound. 00:09:668 - here is where the vocals end anyways – having a ½ rhythm here doesn't seem great if the slider doesn't end on a real beat, and the downbeat isn't all that strong to me atleast since it's not the vocals which is really the prominent part of this section.
00:10:186 (4,5,6) - if you do do that ^^ i would recommend changing these to either a 1/1 slider + note or a 1/1 slider repeating to not have such a high note density on a soft part
00:16:220 (5) - consider ending this slider on 00:16:392 - instead since it has a more noticeable sound than the red tick – this is a map that asks the player to listen to the melody. If the player listens to the melody, they can't really transition to that drum beat in a meaningful way, and instead would rather continue with the trumpet sound that the slider currently lands on.
00:27:772 - sound here really needs to be clickable imo. it will have a better transition to the next note as well as sounding better – current transition sets up following the vocals better imo
00:39:840 (3,4) - the slider body makes it have a weird flow so i would change it to something more circular. if you say its for emphasis, then why didnt you do the same thing here 00:41:220 (6,1) – because that 'gu' sound is very different from the 'ki' sound and it's on a new measure.
00:55:358 (1) - honestly, i would just end the slider here 00:56:392 - and add a note here 00:56:737 - and delete this 00:57:082 (2,3) - to have a better transition – A lot of people have been suggesting to change this up, and so far this is the best suggestion. Let me try out some things.
01:16:048 - doesnt this feel a little empty? maybe change the rhythm a bit since the 2 repeats sound kind of off for example https://puu.sh/v1JS3/c9c5c32c85.png could work? – rhythm seems find, just listen to the melody.
01:24:151 (3) - kind of nitpicking, but i think you can do a better slider than this.. https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/7682207 – and ruin the heart shape?
01:26:048 - maybe add a note here for a finishing touch? then move the spinner a beat after ending on same place ofc – thanks for the feedback, that's actually why Easy and Normal are different here.

[hard]
00:05:703 - personal preference, but i think you can make some nice slider art here – suggestions?
00:09:841 - same issue as normal, ending the slider on the downbeat here makes it sound a little weird – going with the vocals
00:15:186 (1,2,3) - flow here feels a bit too linear imo try something more simple like : https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/7682220 – good idea
00:31:220 (1,2) - isnt the spacing here kind of low? you had almost the same spacing here 00:11:048 (5,1) - and 00:30:186 (4,1) - and its 1/2 so people might misread it – fixed a little
00:42:944 - consider ctrl+g the rhythm here 00:42:772 (1,2) - to make the stronger beat clickable – going with the melody
01:07:944 (2,3) - spacing here shouldnt be as large. you should increase the spacing here instead 01:08:289 (4,5) - – going with the melody
01:10:358 (1) - consider changing this to a 1/1 slider to compliment the vocals more. if youre following the instruments, why end a slider on the downbeat? especially since you did it here 01:13:117 (1) - might as well do it for consistency (this applies to others as well i.e. 01:15:875 (1) - ) – it's not a 1/1 because there's a vocal on 01:10:703 (2) - . The other examples you show are consistent with the philosophy of expressing the melody
01:24:668 (2,3) - random flow break here :c you dont need the stacks imo if its just going to be harder to read – I think it's fine

[insane]
00:03:461 (3,4) - why is spacing here larger than things like 00:03:806 (4,1) - etc? Dx should be the other way around imo – it's to emphasize the vocals
00:04:841 - the jumps here deserve to have the same spacing since the vocal sounds are the same instead of slowly decreasing -- tested it out some other ways. I thought this was the best result given the aesthetic. I could change the aesthetic, but I was pretty happy the way it was when I made it, so I'll get some more reactions to this
00:05:531 (6,1) - another thing about spacing for these jumps, i think these should be emphasized more since its a downbeat, so increase the spacing? -- ^
00:15:875 (3,4) - flow here is a little bit sudden. i was expecting it to go to 00:16:392 (5) - so maybe switch their positions – I think it's fine
00:42:772 - you were following the instruments but then this slider ending on a downbeat kind of ruins ittt so maybe ctrl+g this 00:42:599 (5,1) – the trumpet syncopates to this note, so the melody's downbeat is not the big white tick, but the red tick this slider starts on.
00:56:048 - i think you can be a little more creative here than pratically stacking them – the creative part is at 00:56:737 (1,2,3,4) – while the bland part of the music is bland.
00:59:841 (3,4) - little flowbreak here which i think you can fix. make it flow counter cw like youve been doing? – flow seems fine to me.
01:02:254 (1,4) - stack this to make it look cleaner? XD – offset make it more readable though, and I prefer being able to play the pattern rather than look at it.
01:15:875 (1) - i addressed this in hard but i think these should be 1/1 sliders to match the vocals like 01:14:669 (1,1) - – but the trumpet at 01:16:220 (2) – sound so nice
01:26:048 (2) - move this just a bit lower so it blankets the stream – the stream has long since faded and no aesthetic value will result from that change, though I'm open to any others.

i took a brief look at idol and i think it suffers most of its problem in which i stated in insane so i think you can apply it there
gl! – thanks for the mod!