MaridiuS wrote:

[Bonsai's Hard]
00:20:014 (3) - this blanket looks very weird, pls fix done
00:20:514 (4) - I think NC should be here, its a downbeat. I also feel that you should emphasize it somehow, like maybe ctrl+G Nah, I always try to NC by vocal phrases in the whole diff, and it's already emphasized enough by being a slider instead of just a circle, I wanna focus more on vocals than on beat
00:21:514 (2,3) - fix blanket ;v maaan that's absolutely unnoticable, but ok lol
00:27:014 (4) - i know that this is a bit more intense than 00:26:014 - but i'd suggest to follow either vocals or that beat fully. Following vocals would feel weird bc they don't have any note after that so the slider would end on 'nothing', and I am following the beat fully anyways except for 00:28:264 which I leave empty in order to emphasize the three beats of 00:28:514 (1) more
00:28:514 (1,2) - stack feels weird compared to 00:28:014 (6,1) - I don't understand why though, to me it feels good o:
00:42:514 (4,5) - stacking could work better here, as you already did some stacks like here 00:40:514 (1,2) - but 00:40:514 (1,2) is the same tone twice whereas these are different, and I find 00:42:764 to be the stronger beat too
01:00:264 (1,2) - stacking them would feel nice but (2) is a reeaally strong beat starting the Kiai-section, and I'm already stacking (5,1) and I don't wanna mix things up either
01:00:514 (2) - also why is there no NC here because it's already at the beat prior to it, bc I am following the vocal phrases instead of the pure rhythm ^^
01:08:514 (2,6) - since these two appear to be the same, 01:09:514 (4,8) - shouldn't it also happen to those 2? oh that was actually just an accident, I didn't mean to make it appear the same like that, I think the rhythm already makes them unified enough
01:15:514 (9,1) - a bit imperfect blanket aaaaaaasdf
01:24:514 (2,4,6,8) - shouldn't there be some identical patterns like in 01:08:514 (2,4,6,8) - mhh yeah, I copied the curved slider again, looks much better anyways ^^
01:37:764 (5) - maybe ctrl+g on this one for some gimmicks ;v lol pls ^^ same number thrice, so same slider thrice
01:45:264 (4) - in the whole section this one is only just a bit more angled, why? uhhh well it's the same angle as 01:44:514 (1,2,3) are placed in, I can't really explain that either though, it just felt right and still does, probably because it's the end of the section or smth
02:08:514 (3,4) - fixi blanketi blanketi fixedli
02:24:264 - think that this should be clickable, as you usually add a red tick circle before a downbeat 02:20:264 (1) - I know what you mean but in this case, I want to emphasize the 'additional' vocals that are mapped with 02:22:889 (1,2,3,4,5) more, and making that last slider a circle would kill differentiation bc then there would be six circles in a row, mixing everything together, and I don't like that very much, so I prioritized
02:57:514 (4,5) - blanket fix fixi foxi
Generally i'm a bit confused on this diff about NC's. Also i'm not proficient at modding below Insane. welp, I hope it makes sense to you when you focus on the vocals more bc that's what I did ^^ Thanks a lot for modding!

Metaku wrote:

[Bonsai's Hard]01:40:514 (1,2) - Just a random idea but you could nc both of these for the "one one" vocals heh nah, repitition of numbers occurs many times so if I NC'd one of them I'd have to NC all of them which would result in spam lol

I get your idea on NCs but sometimes it results in really long combos like this 02:36:264 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17) - so might want to split some of them up. Overall a good diff imo, pretty different from my style so not much I could point out. That's actually the only combo that is so long, and that's because of the "incredibly unbroken"-lyrics at 02:36:264 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) so I wanted my combo to be unbroken too xd But thanks!

Stingy wrote:

[Hard]
00:39:514 (4,1) - Loosen (1)'s curve a bit to improve blanket uhh idk, whatever I try to do it just makes it look worse so I'm just gonna keept it like this xddd
01:15:514 (9) - (meme mod) this slide risn't blanketing the background perfectly :v fix kds please thanks this is the punishment for people who disabled the video, g e t   t r i g g e r e d
02:08:014 (1) - Why is this NC so long? This combo isn't notably longer than any others, it just got many circles - The basic NC-density is NCing on every second measure here, this one is just two notes longer bc I NCd two beats earlier since the vocals phrase already started there, but the next one starts on the downbeat again
I was expecting you to point out 02:38:514 though which you didn't but since previous mods mentioned it I reconsidered and put a NC there now lol
[]
Ye Yeeeee

MaridiuS wrote:

lets go! L E T S GO

[Insane]
Ar would fit better to get a little lowered. Like 8.6-8.8 no i disagree, the middle part is very dense and calls for such AR. also .2 difference is nothing please don't make it seem like you'd notice while playing
00:13:514 (3,4) - starting with fix blanket lol, but i somehow think you want it this way did
00:20:014 (4) - don't like how this slider looks changed curvature and angle
00:26:014 (5,6) - think this should be emphasized with bigger spacing, sounds louder than other beats. did a raise but probably not for the reasons you wanted. these sounds are present later on and they do not seem to deserve anything special to me idk
00:26:514 (1,2,3) - Same goes for here, feels like the section is somehow more intense/louder than the first one, but it appears to be mapped the same way.
00:28:014 (4) - Reduced SV should fit here alot of things would fit here
00:41:014 (2) - Damn making this a reverse slider would be nice but it would end on a really strong beat sadlife Yes i prefer splitting to vocals
00:49:014 (3,4) - I'd disagree with stacking this, making it a bigger jump would fit better (imo) http://puu.sh/tLq2A/d535eb6062.jpg I think that since the two vocals are identical, a stack fits well
00:58:764 (2) - following the 2 loud bass hits would should fit better here, this exact vocal is kinda weird to follow. i still think the vocal outweights anythign else here. Also please consider the rest of the pattern when you're modding things. I'm obviously focusing only on vocals in this part
01:04:014 (4) - making this into 2 circles somehow feels better yea well i do this because i want to transition between vocals and synth. idk it feels kinda awkward to suddently not have the 4th slider completing the pairs
01:16:014 (6,7) - why is spcing reduced here they all incrementally decrease. slower to make the strong beat after powerful
01:16:514 (1,2,3,4,5) - after this everything feels really low spaced, somehow i get a feeling like after this pattern spacing and SV will increase. changed
01:19:264 (3,4) - feels like this jump should be bigger feels like alot of things
01:20:014 (5,6) - same here ikr
01:21:514 (3,4) - this kind of overlap doesnt seem good to me introduced so abruptly you're playing an insane, not an easy
01:22:889 (2,3,4,1,2) - this is so nice lol
01:27:514 (1,2) - 01:25:514 (1,2) - in one part there's lineral flow, but on the other there is flow break on same sounds. Explain? nothing to explain really, i'm just not trying to maintain extreme consistency in my map as i think it's often more detrimental that good
01:34:514 (1,3) - visual spacing between these 2 sohuld be same as 01:34:264 (5,2) - i did stuff but probably not what you suggested xd
01:40:014 (4,5) - dont think spacing should large here, in this way it does not make 01:40:514 (1) - emphasized movement is intended to go faster here for reason i'll have trouble explaining very well xd
01:41:264 (1) - shouldn't look like 01:41:514 (2,3) - because (2) and (3) follow completely same sounds, would be more interactive if you wiggle this one out, to make the other 2 stand out as a pattern. EIGHT EIGHT EIGHT
01:50:014 (4) - consider making this as 2 circles why things are so weak here
01:52:514 (1) - ^
02:00:014 (4,5) - should have smae spacing as 01:58:014 (4,5) - or at least a bit higher makes no sense to me xd
02:09:514 (4,5) - this spacing is larger than 02:09:764 (5,6) - think that's a mistake (especially considering your way of strong beat emphasizing) exception was made for the sake of patterning (and because there is not much space left here lul) they're almost equal anyways
02:18:014 (5,6) - either make 5 a kickslider, since (6) is not really a clickable note. i suggest you listen again
02:18:889 (2,3,4,5) - ^(except referring to (3) here)
02:20:014 (2) - bending the second half more downwards looks better http://puu.sh/tLrSN/661ae55c05.jpg opinions differ ;(
02:30:014 (2) - making it into a slider would be more fitting circles differentiate more here
02:32:014 (2) - ^
03:06:514 (2) - would making it into a kickslider fit? maybe but for consistency ity's probably not a good idea

Metaku wrote:

m4m
[General]

AR 9 and OD 8 seem a bit high for 4* of 120 bpm. Maybe drop to AR 8,5 and OD 7 and have Bonsai's diff adjusted to AR 7 and OD for spread?

[Normal]

00:12:514 (1,1,2,3,4,1) - This part is 1.4x DS while rest is 1.2? for pure structural reasons, lower ds makes this very cramped so idk
00:13:514 (1) - Quite unnecessary NC here, MaybeNC every 2 downbeats instead of every downbeat as now the combos are really short? what would changing that achieve exactly lol, changed the nc tho
00:24:514 (1) - Vocals start on slider end, maybe want to change it in a way it's clickable BETTER
00:26:514 (1,2,3,4) - 00:22:514 (1,2,3) - Aren't these the same part? Maybe use same rhythm as well. wait what i think these are very different
00:31:264 - Skipped a strong vocal here although yo have mapped red tick vocals earlier (00:22:264 (4,3) - ) And otherwise used red ticks a lot The one you linked is very faint. Also strong is probably a word we won't agree on lol
00:32:514 (1,2) - Same as 00:28:514 (1,2,3) - try to keep consistent rhythm 1st is mapped because of the bass pitch change
00:36:264 (3) - No strong sound here so you could skip it for a normal
00:41:264 - And could map this instead the second part focuses 100% on vocals
00:45:514 (3) - I'd really suggest 1/1 slider and a circle instead, here 00:53:514 (3) - works fine tho as it's single held vocal unlike 00:45:514 (3) -where the vocal changes on the white tick didn't read but i fixed it
01:32:514 (1) - I get you're trying to follow the vocals with this but there's a really strong sound on the white tick and it would work also for the vocals so might want to reconsider this slider vocals are the main layer here and thus are more noticeable than the constant snare
01:34:014 (1) - Not really fan of ending sliders on downbeat like this. maybe 1/2 + circle would be better maybe but i really like the effect the repeat slider gives here like the direction changes happens with the downbeat which i think is cool
01:40:514 (1,2,3,4) - 01:42:514 (1,2,3) - 01:44:514 (1,2,3) - Again inconsistent rhythm for the exact same thing not only is this not true, but it's also not very relevant since i don't really aim for 100% consistency as i think it makes a map boring
02:01:514 (2) - 02:03:514 (2) - Here again you should try to work this so the vocals are clickable as you've followed vocals most of the time note density tbh
etc

Your rhythm choices are kinda weird sometimes as you ignore some strong sounds but then sometimes map some very unimportant sounds on red ticks... They're pretty inconsistent too you should probably be focusing on that. Aesthetics look fine to me tho. since strong doesn't tell much i'll tell you how i wiew strong https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30GBgmww1q4

[Insane]
00:22:264 (6,1) - Feels like really big spacing compared to the rest, maybe a make it a bit smaller chord chnages have higher spacing here
00:23:014 (3,4) - Maybe some pattern like here 00:23:514 (1,2,3,4) - would work better as now your pattern has emphasis on 4 which is weaker than 3 imo yea uhm i-it looks nice htough right????
00:26:014 (5,6) - Here again spacing. 6 has a strong vocal on it so doesn't make sense imo to have so low spacing especially when you've used spacing like this earlier00:22:264 (6,1) - yes
00:30:014 (5,6) - Same here yea uh i was focusing on bass here that is kinda normal not too intense, did the same later
00:56:514 (1,1,1,1) - NC spam? yea i feel these individual beats are strong enough
01:12:514 (1,2,3) - Not sure about this, it playes rather weirdly imo probably because you play too much 1/2 maps
01:17:014 (3,4) - 01:18:014 (6,7) - inconsistent spacing again, had big spacing on all vocals earlier, now 6 with only drum has large spacing into a vocal with really low spacing yea fixed that, second one is correct though
01:44:264 (5) - 01:45:264 (4) - You've had all sevens as stacks before so might want to change here too would never have expected anyone to notice lol, nice catch
02:00:514 (1,2,3) - Nice triangle meme
02:10:014 (6,7) - I'd say either stack there or increase spacing pretty much the same as 02:09:514 (4,5) - but I feel 7 has even stronger vocals than 5 so yeah. patterns
03:04:514 (1,1,1,1) - Kinda unnecessary NCing again imo yea

Rhythmwise a lot better than your normal, might want to reconsider some spacing tho

Stingy wrote:

[Insane]
I like how this is made
00:13:514 (3,4) - This blanket is a little too tight at the end. Loosen it a bit? did
00:18:514 (1,2) - Flip these across X-axis? 00:27:514 (3,4) - Kinda like you did here :3. It supports the flow better (in my opinion) and also looks good because 00:17:514 (3) - is curved upward. idk i like it like that
00:20:014 (4) - It's just me, but I think this slider is kinda tight e
00:51:264 (1,2,3) - I'm not too sure you care but the followpath doesn't match up 100% nah i don't
01:32:514 (1,2,3) - I think you should loosen the curve these object make just a tad strong curve was intended here, I think these look good as individual objects lol
01:34:514 (2,1) - NC these so they say "2, 1"? :33 I wish i could nc everythign that way but sadly it's not possible so i'd rather have ncs be correct lol. Love the idea though
01:38:514 (3) - ^ (if you like it)
01:39:514 (3) - ^
01:40:514 (1,2) - I think this one is VERY do-able because he just says "1, 1"
02:15:014 (2,4) - This blanket is just a little tight. Loosen (4) juuuust a little tried
02:29:014 (2,3,4) - Can you make this go in a straight line please? >.> uuuuuh

LMT wrote:

caps madness from the guy with an username all in caps.

1. 00:36:264 (3) - would recommend to remove the circle since it will bring a greater emphasis to 00:36:514 (1) -
2. 00:53:514 (3) - 00:55:514 (3) - it could act as an inconsistency to the rhythm that is applied in the section from 00:36:514 - to 00:40:514 - + the current rhythm applied neglects the snare beats in the slider ticks. consider to split the sliders into 1/1 followed with circles instead. same applied to the part in the end.
3. 00:59:514 (1) - suggest to split the slider into 1/1 followed by a circle, in order to differentiate the glitch sound and the start of the vocals
4. 01:13:514 (1) - accidental nc + 01:34:014 (1,2) - would suggest to swap the combos
5. 03:08:264 - the ending point should be 1/2 beat earlier to land on the last keyboard note, which is at 03:08:264 - . same as in hard and insane

1. doesn't really agree with your combo pattern which is based on vocal sentences, since sometimes the combos are too long, and there would be times when perspectives to differ each sentence out among the players are different. consider to arrange up your combos and follow the combo pattern based on beat count, as implemented in other difficulties.
2. 02:04:514 (1,2,3) - 02:06:514 (5,6,7) - distance-time should be followed, considering that the 1/4 jump pattern is implemented soon after 02:03:514 (10,11) - in which confusion will be caused
3. 02:41:014 (2,3) - maybe avoid the pattern to provide players a better reading?
4. 03:07:514 (5) - as in normal

1. 01:12:514 (1,2,3) - maybe this first introduction of 1/4 jump will be assumed as a diff spike? idk mayb merge 01:13:014 (3,4) - up becoming a slider as an early introduction
2. 01:40:264 (5) - would be cool if the note is differentiated by a stand-alone circle from the consecutive 1/4s before to emphasize the sudden halt
3. 02:15:889 - undermapped + 02:42:389 (6) - overmapped

HootOwlStar wrote:

[hard]

1. doesn't really agree with your combo pattern which is based on vocal sentences, since sometimes the combos are too long, and there would be times when perspectives to differ each sentence out among the players are different. consider to arrange up your combos and follow the combo pattern based on beat count, as implemented in other difficulties. The vocal phrases always align almost exactly with the downbeats except that they are mostly one beat earlier, which i sbeing evend out since the following phrase most like starts one phrase earlier too. High-number-combos like the one at 02:08:014 would still have 14 hitobjects if I NC'd it by downbeats (altho I noticed rn that I could just put additional NCs at 02:11:560 and similar spots so I did that, also I forgot one at 02:46:514 -). tl;dr: It makes barely any difference.
2. 02:04:514 (1,2,3) - 02:06:514 (5,6,7) - distance-time should be followed, considering that the 1/4 jump pattern is implemented soon after 02:03:514 (10,11) - in which confusion will be caused I don't see how this would be confusing just bc a previous 1/4 has been spaced, this sorta pattern has already been used at 01:48:514 (3,4,5) -(which is also the same lyrics) so it shouldn't be surprising or anything
3. 02:41:014 (2,3) - maybe avoid the pattern to provide players a better reading? This is much easier to read ingame than it seems in the editor, and this diff has quite many tricky 'gimmicks' anyways so I think that's a reasonable thing to do
4. 03:07:514 (5) - as in normal Slidertails don't need to be mapped to an active beat when the sliderbody itself is representing a sound, which is the case here, most of the 'background-noise' (in particular that one noise that sounds almost like the drum-sliderslide lol) is still continuing and then ends where the slider ends

Bonsai wrote:

LMT wrote:

caps madness from the guy with an username all in caps.

lowercase calmness from the guy with an username all in caps.

Bonsai wrote:

classic Bonsai, always denying everything

HootOwlStar wrote:

[normal]

1. 00:36:264 (3) - would recommend to remove the circle since it will bring a greater emphasis to 00:36:514 (1) - I kinda want to have continuity here it just sounds right to me
2. 00:53:514 (3) - 00:55:514 (3) - it could act as an inconsistency to the rhythm that is applied in the section from 00:36:514 - to 00:40:514 - + the current rhythm applied neglects the snare beats in the slider ticks. consider to split the sliders into 1/1 followed with circles instead. same applied to the part in the end. Cmon it's pretty obvious what i'm doing here. Snares and other instruments are ignored to give full emphasis on vocals.
3. 00:59:514 (1) - suggest to split the slider into 1/1 followed by a circle, in order to differentiate the glitch sound and the start of the vocals I wasn't trying to represent the glitch sound with my mapping but rather continue to emphasize long vocals with long sliders
4. 01:13:514 (1) - accidental nc + 01:34:014 (1,2) - would suggest to swap the combos Did first but didn't do 2nd because the repeat is stronger than the red tick just after
5. 03:08:264 - the ending point should be 1/2 beat earlier to land on the last keyboard note, which is at 03:08:264 - . same as in hard and insane I think we both try to stop the slider with the vocals here. makes more sense following that than the very faint piano imo

[insane]

1. 01:12:514 (1,2,3) - maybe this first introduction of 1/4 jump will be assumed as a diff spike? idk mayb merge 01:13:014 (3,4) - up becoming a slider as an early introduction No that's a very common pattern for an insane
2. 01:40:264 (5) - would be cool if the note is differentiated by a stand-alone circle from the consecutive 1/4s before to emphasize the sudden halt seems good
3. 02:15:889 - undermapped mapping every sound is not an obligation. I tried doing something though and it sounded really awkward to me + 02:42:389 (6) - overmapped did

.

MrSergio wrote:

General

1. this may sound dumb, but there were some troubles with file names starting with numbers or non-standard characters, so just to be sure: maybe rename your bg to "bg" or something not with numbers? xD not my place to answer but I think what you're thinking of is the fact that when you had an mp3 starting with a number it fucked up a lot of things, but that got fixed by automatically converting those filenames to 'audio', and afaik nothing else is like that ^^

________________

Bonsai's Hard

1. 01:08:514 (2,3,4) - please enable stacking in editor and manual stack these xD
   01:10:514 (6,7) - 01:24:514 (2,3) - etc... yeah those are on purpose, firstly because I actually like how those look, secondly because they differentiate the different time-gaps since 3/4 is only used in these patterns and they're all stacking like this
2. 02:01:764 (5,6,7,8) - considering the calm part and the general note density, what do you think about a circle + repeat slider instead? It should be easier and less stressful in this part imo I see but I find every way of using a slider here very weird though because they'd either give wrong emphasis or play very awkwardly, and I think this is totally okay since everything around it is not dense at all so ya.. (also I guess it would take away the possibility to make 02:18:514 (8,1,2) - even less intense lol)
   02:17:764 (4,5,6,7) - etc...
3. well, I'm obviously not at the right level to comment about this with certainty, but wouldn't it be hard to read 02:04:514 (1,2,3) - and 02:05:264 (3,4) - as different snaps? The visual spacing is the same... Hard-players aren't 100% relying on visual spacing anymore though, they mostly know of jumps and antijumps already, the used rhythm/objects should make this very intuitive since reading it any other way would make for the weirdest rhythm ever, and I already start using 'confusing' spacing at 00:20:014 (3,4,1) - which even my sucky #230k-testplayer got right so ya xd
4. 02:25:514 (5,6,7,1,2) - this might be hard to interpret too in gameplay. My concern is more about the logic someone may use for this, rather than the pattern itself.
   As an experienced player I have no troubles memorizing and recognizing the concept for 02:26:389 (6,7) - or any other pattern, but I believe that what matters here is how often you visually change things. Changing too often the only reference (visual spacing_ the player has might be a bit too harsh yet imo again I think this is not misleading at all bc of the rhythmic context, it starts with the harder 3/4-rhythm while the following rhythm isn't visible at all so that by itself shouldn't be a problem since it occurred like that before, and the following rhythm is as basic as it can get so I don't see that being an issue
5. 02:43:014 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - a bit hard to read too if you ask me ^_^" welp, can't say much about this other than that I think if a player can read the parts where I switch between 1/4- and 1/2-stacks then they can read this too lol, that's just simply the reading-skill required by the targeted audience of the overall diff

If you can get a testplay from... let's say, a 300k player, we can actually confirm my doubts (or not) wasn't successful at getting anybody so far except a #200k who sucked at the entire map, will try again tmrw lol

MrSergio wrote:

as requested B)

General

1. this may sound dumb, but there were some troubles with file names starting with numbers or non-standard characters, so just to be sure: maybe rename your bg to "bg" or something not with numbers? xD ye
2. add "Weightless" in tags? (the name of the album this song is from) (from your third metadata link in desc) ofc

________________

Insane

1. 00:12:514 - 00:18:514 - idk, I may be imposing my vision here, but this intro is a bit too dense, since you followed more background music than things I can hear in foreground: for example 00:12:514 (1) - would be cool with just a circle, stacked on 00:13:014 (2) - 's head, or for 00:15:514 - I would probably try to focus a bit more on vocals and do something like this ok so i tried many things and i really don't feel comfortable undermapping the intro right now. I tried changign stuff my way in many places and removing things feels super awkward because there are beats i miss that i deem important (most of the 1/2 filler rythm). When putting it into contrast with the part that is following everything gets really imbalanced density wise. Imo the intro works as is, it's slower and way less intense than the rest of the map
2. 00:25:514 (4,5,6,1) - why the sudden increase in spacing? I could understand it for 00:26:264 (6) - since it seems to be a strong vocal, but the rest ?.? Someone suggested i put jumps here i think because of the bass sounds which i thought made sense. anyways i reduced it a bit so that it's not as extreme anymore
3. 00:28:014 (4) - I suggested something similar in my first point: what do you think about a stacked circle on 00:28:514 (1) - instead? It creates a nice contrast with the next section in the song, so it feels less "spammy" with all that 1/2 stuff I don't really like that as it would ignore the strength of the downbeat completely
4. 00:35:014 (2) - curving this a little like this is a no-go? /w\ I guess this is just a matter of preference , I absolutely love combinations of straight sliders and curved sliders with opposite angles. I think the parallelism with 00:33:514 (3) - works very well too
   The straight shape just felt a bit off in the whole combo (you have just curved sliders + 00:32:514 (1,2) - is a similar concept and uses curved stuff too)
5. 00:46:014 (5,6) - this is more of a personal flow I think, so it might not be of your linking, but if you shift these a bit to the bottom, like this, you create a "hopping" feeling that fits well with the song imo. Your patterns creates weird interactions with other objects (overlaps) but it gave me ideas
   Perfect back and forths should be reserved for really strong parts, since they are indeed the movements with the highest amount of emphasis i do not 100% agree with that as jumps with small angles are usually easy to play compared to obtuse angles.
6. 01:05:014 (3,4,5) - minor once again, but what do you think of moving this stack to x311 y267? Do you not think the equilateral triangle formed by the triple and the 2 other circles looks better? I also think speed is easier to manage with the current spacing considering the next slider is already pretty far away
   This suggestion is based on some flow analysis I do in my head but don't really change much. It's just a matter of feeling so feel free to ignore it if you don't like it
7. 01:19:014 (2,3) - this stack seems to be quite inconsistent with the rest: all of the other patterns on this sort of rhythm were like 01:20:014 (5,6) - (spread instead of stacked). Is there a way to spread these two too? there is
8. 01:18:514 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3) - just noticed, but at times your structures are just... going poof. With that I mean that I personally can't find a solid base as to why those objects are placed exactly like that and with those shapes so uh, i don't really know what you call "good" structure but i'll try to explain. 01:18:514 (1,2,3,4) - equal spacing between each other 01:19:514 (4,5,6) - same 01:20:514 (1,2,3) - same the rest are just combinations of slidershapes and angles i like. Idk if you care about that but i usually don't form patterns with too much symmetry in mind. Hence why i sometimes do the srtaight slider curved slider thing you mentionned earlier. Imo it gives my map a bit more personality than just copypasting patterns i see in other maps
9. 01:27:514 (1) - x20 y90? agreed what am i doing
10. 01:22:014 (1) - you probably don't need this NC alright
    Same goes for 01:23:514 (1) - 01:25:514 (1) - 01:27:514 (1) - 01:29:514 (1) - imo. This part just starts using smaller combos for... what reason? x) i just left the starship one as i think the song justifies it. also goes well with the change of direction idk
11. 01:40:264 (5) - just to be sure, can you make the distance before this circle a bit smaller than the one after it?
    While it is true we have approach circles to read the pattern, I believe it might be confusing to have two different snaps with same visual spacing, above all if we notice how you play around with spacing in this part I'm actually gonna go futher than that and argue that this will never be confusing in game as the whole part uses those 1/4 sliders so people know what's gonna happen. 01:39:264 (5,1) - 01:39:014 (4,5) - they're gonna be aware of what is gonna be happening i'm sure. also the clicking pattern is very intuitive so no worries i'd say
12. 01:46:514 (1) - imo a circle would fit better to express that vocal :p LOCK
13. 02:20:514 - this kiai has no punch at all, even if it is stronger than the part before it.
    Maybe increase SV, or at least increase spacing for at least 02:20:514 (1,2,3,4) - to give the "punch" feeling ur right, remapped something
14. 02:48:014 (6,7) - what do you think about a ctrl G? The beat on 6 is the same as for 02:47:014 (2) - , but 2 had a pretty big jump on it to match the emphasis while 6 doesn't idk having the 2 snares in the same place pleases me xd
15. 03:05:014 (2) - maybe move to x339 y215 (to keep the curve for 03:04:514 (1,2,3) - clean) and then ctrl G (to match 00:56:514 (1,2,3) - from the intro) ? eh i don't really want the exact same pattern as the one in the beginning. The concept stays the same so i'd say it's fine that way?

Some of the changes I suggested were on things appearing just once, like the short combos part, 01:19:014 (2,3) - or 00:46:014 (5,6) - etc... So the main reason for those is just consistency more than anything

________________

________________

Normal

1. it would be nice to keep things consistent between 00:15:014 (1,2) - and 00:12:514 (1,2) - , so what do you think about deleting 00:12:514 (1) - and using a circle at 00:13:014 - ? eeeeeh i don't like the idea. for it to be 100% consistent i'd have to map 00:12:514 - with a sliderend too. I don't really think consistency matters here
2. 00:53:514 (3,1) - I'd either delete 1 and make 3 longer, or reduce 3 to just a 1/1 slider.
   The fact you skip 00:54:014 - (a strong, drum beat) and map 00:54:264 - (a background beat? Not sure) is a bit contradictory to me x) the complete reasoning is : Vocal is more important than everythign else here. Random beat is mapped because it's the downbeat and thus the strongest beat of the measure. Also there is conviniently no vocals there xd
3. 00:59:514 (1) - you don't need this NC :p deleted this nc and the one at the end
   You technically can do that since there is a strong vocal on the slider, but shortening so much combos on lower diffs is just... a cluster if you ask me xD
   (your combos are generally at least 4 beats long too)

________________

Let me know~

BOUYAAA wrote:

bonsai is a TOAD

Lasse wrote:

bonsai
00:36:764 (1) - cute nya~
01:41:014 (3,4,7) - bit random reading difficulty spike considering you never do anything similar I don't think so at all bc firstly it's not really that confusing as (3) has faded out quite long before (7) appears, and the whole diff is filled with stuff that is tricky to read so it fits well imo xd

Lasse wrote:

can you put tags for all diffs in the same order, this is tilting lol

00:24:514 (1) - shouldnt this have softw ? I put softwhistle on every vocal

01:32:514 - this section feels quite empty hitsound wise did alot of stuff

insane
ar seemed quite high considering most of the map is slow jumps
8.5 or 8.7 would fit that better and still be alright for i disagree ar9 is perfectly fine in this scenario especially considering the dense part in the middle
00:12:514 - conflicting timing lines, green line should be S:C1 e
01:37:264 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - don't think this needs nc spam cause the whole part uses such normal comboing tru
01:41:139 (4,1) - 01:45:389 (5,6) - I think these two could be reduced a bit, they felt like too huge spikes in difficulty compared to others nerfed them a little so that they are more in line with the rest
02:34:764 (2,3,4) - would make sense to space cause you did that for similar vocals. or also stack 02:35:514 (5,6,7) - cause music is getting much less intense. i spaced and nerfed spacing on 2nd one, completely stackign felt a bit off but current spacing is aonly for aesthetics really

normal
00:17:514 (1) - http://lasse.s-ul.eu/LBX4R3Cf.jpg fix your curve lol e
00:35:514 (2,3,1,2) - looks bad cause noticeably broken spacing yea woops

bonsai's change after the bubble is really minor so I should be fine to qualify right away

Lasse wrote:

qualified

Bonsai wrote:

Lasse wrote:

qualified

that's an interesting twist