forum

Camellia - Feelin Sky (Camellia's "200step" Self-remix)

posted
Total Posts
103
show more
Ameth Rianno
this my new anime
Haruto
aesthetic banner 👌
7ambda
04:25:162 (1,2,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2) - ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

04:03:112 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - ( ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉)

05:13:912 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - ( ͡◉ ͜ʖ ͡◉)

04:06:712 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,4) - (̲̅ ͡◥▶ ͜ʖ ͡◀◤)
Lavender
overkill
Mazzerin

Lavender wrote:

overkill
hell no
_Meep_

Mazzerin wrote:

Lavender wrote:

overkill
hell no
hell yes
Lulu-
i thought i wouldn't be able to find a reason to live anymore

i was wrong
Sad Cum
oh ma gah
Kujinn
👌

only thing left is a sick -tochi storyboard
Sing

FoxyGrandpa wrote:

  • [Ambivalence]

    00:20:212 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - Not sure about the spacing here, seems to kind of jump to a much larger spacing for the really quiet sounds lowered spacing

    00:23:512 - to 00:39:562 - . This entire section is in 1/3, aside from the kicksliders at 00:32:437 - . fixed

    01:01:912 - Kinda curious about the kiai here for such a calm section :/ lul i added that, imma prob take it off now since more than 1/3 of the map is kiai

    04:47:662 (2) - I feel like the sv should be lower for this slider because of the slowdown effect in the sound being mapped there. fixed
Best of luck probox :)
ty for mod

updated .osz: https://puu.sh/weLVX/b9c97cbcf7.osz
Topic Starter
ProfessionalBox

Kujinn wrote:

👌

only thing left is a sick -tochi storyboard
should be done by the end of this month
Topic Starter
ProfessionalBox
fixed all offscreens (I think) from FoxyGrandpa's mod
Xilver15
Hi Probox/Sing/Bonzi o/ Small mod after a discussion with Probox. (and out of personal interest, haha)

~
General seems okay.

In my opinion, this map suffers a lot from the "Everything is emphasized, so nothing is emphasized" issue. Everything feels so over the top and there's not enough contrast for different parts of the song, I feel. This is what this mod addresses. I can't say a lot on the visuals/structure because they are really well made and consistent, so good job on that. C:

[Ambivalence]

00:40:312 (1,2) - 00:40:612 (1,2) - I think 2 repeats would be nice here instead of 4 kicks. Starting with large spacing emphasis like that removes a lot of contrast in the transition, making this feel really weak.
00:44:962 (3) - Why not stack this with 1 like in all your other instances? It forces linear movement which seems unfitting considering the same other parts are mapped with stationary movement. (00:47:212 (1,2) - 00:48:412 (1,2) - )
00:59:362 (3,1) - Shouldn't this be a triple to be consistent with 00:49:762 (3,4,1) - ?
01:01:162 (1,2,3,1,1,1) - I think the song and the hitsounds suggest that the corresponding rhythm should be Triple + Double + Double, but you mapped it as Triple + 3 kicks.
01:10:912 (1) - I appreciate the color change to indicate SV change but I don't think the added sound suggests such a sharp increase in the first place :s. Maybe reduce it a bit?
01:40:312 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - This section is a bit inconsistent. You start with awkward motion at 01:40:312 (1,2,3,4) - And then use circular motion at all the other 3 patterns with nothing in the song changing to suggest such a change. I personally quite like the awkward motion you added because I think it creates a nice contrast between the circular motion you use at the rest of the buildup at 01:45:112 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) -. So I would ctrlG 01:41:512 (1,3) - 01:43:012 (2,4) - and 01:44:212 (2,4) - to keep that motion. (Alternatively, you could use linear motion by ctrlGing 01:40:612 (2,4) - to also be consistent if that's what you prefer)
01:49:912 (1) - CtrlG maybe? The awkward movement is a nice contrast to start a drop because you used linear movement in the previous buildup sliders.
02:01:912 (1) - CtrlG would be nice for this one I think. The tail goes into a weird loop thing which would add nice emphasis if used actively on the head instead of passively on the tail. (Clicking + following the loop at the same time)
02:13:462 (1,2) - How about rotating this pattern 90 degrees for the repeat to be closer to 02:13:912 (1) - ? https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/8299949 Right now 02:13:912 (1) - Feels really weak because the movement required to move to the head is greater than the movement required to complete the slider. This overshadows the slider making it feel weak.
02:15:712 (1,1,1) - These 3 sliders have very similar spacing. As a result, the different emphasized sound at 02:16:312 (1) - Feels very weak. How about moving 02:16:012 (1) - closer to either 02:15:712 (1) - or 02:16:312 (1) - to differentiate the spacing? It would give that slider the contrast that it should have. (I personally suggest to move it to 02:16:312 (1) - considering you did a similar thing at 02:18:412 (2,1) - ).
02:23:512 (1) - This is pretty nice, but I think its length should be consistent with 02:13:912 (1) - considering they're the exact same sound. Maybe make 02:13:912 (1) - longer to match?
02:25:312 (1,1,1) - Same instance as 02:15:712 (1,1,1) -, I think.
02:30:712 (1,2,3,1,1,2,3,1,1,2,3,1) - This is a pretty nice pattern, but again I think this loses a lot of impact because it's so similar in spacing to the previous patterns and to itself. Also, there seems to be a rising synth sound at that part of the song, so I think you could start small and gradually increase the kickslider spacing to match that. This would add contrast and match the rising sound.
02:37:462 (1,2,3) - Why are these 3 kicks different in spacing? I think they should match, the song enters a pretty consistent loop which doesn't require spacing changes, in my opinion.
02:42:712 (1,2,3) - Why is this different than all the other ones? (02:43:312 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - )? They sound the same. They should be the same too. (I personally like having 2 1/4 sliders though, so I would personally make all the other instances have 2 1/4's aswell.)
02:49:612 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - This pattern looks nice, but 02:49:612 (1,2,1,2) - is kind of problematic in my opinion because a metronome reset happens at 02:49:912 (1,2) -, so making them have the same motion makes the transition feel really weak.
03:59:512 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3) - The use of jumpstreams seems really uncecessary here, especially considering all the streams after that are normal.
04:06:712 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,4,1) - This feels incredibly over the top for what it's supposed to map. I suggest nerfing this. Not necessarily because it's "too hard" per se, but it's so spaced that it makes the actual second drop feel like a normal section. There isn't much contrast and impact I think. I agree that during a buildup a stream should be steadily increasing, but it should be harder than the actual kiai itself.
04:17:737 (4,1) - Another unnecessary jumpstream in my opinion, it doesn't emphasize anything special in the song because nothing is going on at that part. 04:18:037 (4,1) - is pretty nice though because it emphasizes a nice change in the music which actually exists.
04:25:162 (1,2,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2) - I didn't quite get why this stream increases in spacing, I actually think the pitch is going down?
04:27:562 (2,3,1,2,1,2) - I feel like these should be increased in spacing. I like the idea you have here but it feels overshaowed by everything else beacuse the spacing is so similar.
05:09:112 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - I personally don't like the use of a stream here. You add a lot of clicking emphasis in a section that is practically the same as the one before, where you used repeat sliders. This makes 05:11:512 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - , the stronger part of the buildup, feel weaker because of how easier it is to tap compared to the previous stream.
05:35:512 - This section feels practically the same as the previous one in the kiai beacuse of how dense your rhythm is. The clicking emphasis is practically the same, so it feels like an extension of the previous kiai when in reality it's the beginning of a slow part. I suggest using more passive clicking, using more sliders/repeat sliders and avoiding really spaced streams like 05:44:512 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1) -.

Good luck~ I can see you three put a lot of work/effort on the map. Good job overall. \o/
Weber
Hello, I have some concerns over some potentially unrankable off-screen sliders:

01:19:912 (1) - https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/8300126
02:21:112 (1) - https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/8300171
02:24:562 (1) - https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/8300133
02:30:412 (1) - https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/8300176

As well as these, I think that these sliders here 02:16:012 (1) - may be pushing what can be defined as a "clear and visible path" with the default/any solid skin. I understand the concept you are going for here, but some others may find these to be a problem in the future.

Pretty fun map, good luck!
Rohit6
Sing
xilver
00:40:312 (1,2) - 00:40:612 (1,2) - I think 2 repeats would be nice here instead of 4 kicks. Starting with large spacing emphasis like that removes a lot of contrast in the transition, making this feel really weak. imo this part is jsut fine, having just this part be 2 repeats wud be inconsistent with the other kicksliders that come after it, and this whole section shud b the same since its sjut the build up getting louder; the spacing isnt even that big tbh and its increasing in spacing enough to be emphasized. Even if it is a weak transition, itsn ot really building up to anything big (Like either of the main kiais) So if this build up is "weak" then it's totally fine tbh.
01:49:912 (1) - CtrlG maybe? The awkward movement is a nice contrast to start a drop because you used linear movement in the previous buildup sliders. Nah, I think this slider is much more aesthetically pleasing as it is right now than if it were ctrl+g'ed, plus I dont like the slider's flow into 01:50:212 (2) - if it is flipped. I do agrree with you in your point about contrasting movement tho; I'll ask bonzi if he'd be willing to move 01:49:612 (1) - so that it's positioned like so [/img]
02:01:912 (1) - CtrlG would be nice for this one I think. The tail goes into a weird loop thing which would add nice emphasis if used actively on the head instead of passively on the tail. (Clicking + following the loop at the same time) I like this one the way it is rn too, looks more aesthetically pleasing with the loop at the end for me and I feel that if its flow to 02:02:212 (2) - just isnt as natural to me as if it was ctrl+g'ed.
02:13:462 (1,2) - How about rotating this pattern 90 degrees for the repeat to be closer to 02:13:912 (1) - ? https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/8299949 Right now 02:13:912 (1) - Feels really weak because the movement required to move to the head is greater than the movement required to complete the slider. This overshadows the slider making it feel weak. Making the pattern 90 degrees would break the symmetry I had for this entire buildup section;
Also tbh rotating it would make 02:13:912 (1) - even more weak I think because the spacing between that and 02:13:612 (2) - would be drastically lowered

03:59:512 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3) - The use of jumpstreams seems really uncecessary here, especially considering all the streams after that are normal. I put jump streams here because its still supposed to match the slider repeats that come right after it 04:00:712 (1,1,1) - and that this stream should be significantly harder than the other streams because right before it was a small dubstep break 03:58:312 (1,1,2,1,1) - , so this part should have a strong impact to start off the section
04:06:712 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,4,1) - This feels incredibly over the top for what it's supposed to map. I suggest nerfing this. Not necessarily because it's "too hard" per se, but it's so spaced that it makes the actual second drop feel like a normal section. There isn't much contrast and impact I think. I agree that during a buildup a stream should be steadily increasing, but it should be harder than the actual kiai itself. I really don't think this needs nerfing; I agree the spacing of the stream is higher than any other stream spacing in the kiai that comes after it, but the stream itself is very condensed and uses minimal grid space because of its sharp angles 04:07:162 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,4) - ; also I think you made a typo, if you really meant that the stream should be harder than the kiai itself, I agree :D

Ty for mod, even though I denied all xd
Rohit
00:24:712 (1,2,3) - Personally, I think these play and look fine.
00:36:712 (1,2,3) idk what u mean by triangle, but I didn't like the way it flowed either so I re arranged it.
01:56:062 (1) -There's equally nothing significant at 01:56:212 (2) - than there is at 01:55:537 (2,3) - , tbh (But i think all of those are significant sounds so I'm keeping the kick sliders.)
04:01:912 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - Since this is the 2nd part of the section so it should not have as big as an impact as the start, the synth melody is actually going down in pitch at this section, while the stream section after it goes up in pitch; therefore I think these sections' intensities matching the note pitch is perfectly justified.
05:01:012 (1,2,3,4,5) - The rhythm is right; there's still the same synth melody that was playing at 04:58:612 (1,2,3,4,5) - , it's just quieter.

New .osu: https://puu.sh/wfQVD/62e920f209.osu
Cellina
Hello there
pocket-
was looking at this in the editor and saw a few things that bugged me, so here you go:

Ambivalence
00:24:112 (2,3,1) - At these points it looks like a stack error. Maybe you chose to keep it like it, but as is, it's very choppy. Perhaps move the stacked notes to a more distant area (maybe like this )
00:48:712 (1) - On the top of this slider, it seems really flat and concise. imo it looks better when its more puffy and moved up. your call idk
00:51:562 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - This rhythm is really weird. You make up the 3 drums with 3 notes, but then a double note with a slider, which only requires one click. I would make the 3 sliders three doubles instead, to make up for the 2 drums.
01:01:162 (1,2,3,1,1,1) - ^^^
01:23:512 (1,2) - this overlap is kinda gross looking idk
01:55:762 (3,4,1) - Crazyyy. You can keep it since it does comply with the sr but like... on 200bpm :o (removing it doesn't change the sr either tho).
02:10:312 (1) - to 02:13:312 (3) - HoLy VoLuMe default skin
03:07:312 (1) - I slowed this to 25% and there are still notes on the red and white ticks. I can't see the reason for this 1/3 slider :((
04:05:512 (1) - again HoLy VoLuMe
04:57:862 (1) - There's an important drum on the sliderend, which I think removes its emphasis. If u wanna keep it that's fine but I disagree with this kind fo backwards emphasis ://
05:34:312 (1) - Maybe raise the volume a bit here, I can't hear anything xdd
05:44:512 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - Bit of an intense stream in a cool-down part of the song. Maybe scale it down or turn half of it into a slider or something.

awesome map, really great aesthetics, consistent flow, pretty bg. its got it all. hoping that the rc will send this map straight to ranked! xoxo

~pokey
Einja
living color v2??
Topic Starter
ProfessionalBox
Applied stuff from all the mods! Will reply with a proper reply a bit later ~
C00L
very nice stuff!
fastmarkus
This looks like rrtyui's Atmosphere on steroids, pretty sick-beautiful map Bonzi, ProBox and Sing!
Bonzi
xilver

Xilver wrote:

[Ambivalence]
01:40:312 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - This section is a bit inconsistent. You start with awkward motion at 01:40:312 (1,2,3,4) - And then use circular motion at all the other 3 patterns with nothing in the song changing to suggest such a change. I personally quite like the awkward motion you added because I think it creates a nice contrast between the circular motion you use at the rest of the buildup at 01:45:112 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) -. So I would ctrlG 01:41:512 (1,3) - 01:43:012 (2,4) - and 01:44:212 (2,4) - to keep that motion. (Alternatively, you could use linear motion by ctrlGing 01:40:612 (2,4) - to also be consistent if that's what you prefer) What you suggested is interesting, but it would break visual structure and balance of both 01:41:512 (1,2,3,4) - and 01:43:912 (1,2,3,4) - . At this point, they would be better off beign completely different patterns imo.
01:49:912 (1) - CtrlG maybe? The awkward movement is a nice contrast to start a drop because you used linear movement in the previous buildup sliders. already talked with sing about this, agreed on repositioning the pattern in a different way
02:37:462 (1,2,3) - Why are these 3 kicks different in spacing? I think they should match, the song enters a pretty consistent loop which doesn't require spacing changes, in my opinion. is that even an issue? They are different in spacing because of coincidence and convenience. I just happened to place them on stacks without thinking too much about them. they look ok, and they do the job. There nothing wrong about them imo
02:42:712 (1,2,3) - Why is this different than all the other ones? (02:43:312 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - )? They sound the same. They should be the same too. (I personally like having 2 1/4 sliders though, so I would personally make all the other instances have 2 1/4's aswell.) i was testing stuff along with probox and decided to go with 1/2 sliders for all of them but this got through to the submitted beatmap somehow wwwwwwww fixd
02:49:612 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - This pattern looks nice, but 02:49:612 (1,2,1,2) - is kind of problematic in my opinion because a metronome reset happens at 02:49:912 (1,2) -, so making them have the same motion makes the transition feel really weak. so uhh, can i... just ctrl g them?
05:09:112 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - I personally don't like the use of a stream here. You add a lot of clicking emphasis in a section that is practically the same as the one before, where you used repeat sliders. This makes 05:11:512 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - , the stronger part of the buildup, feel weaker because of how easier it is to tap compared to the previous stream.Yeah i see, but then you try doing something using sliders only and it feels somewhat underwhelming... uhh idk what do here

pokey_gd

Pokey_GD wrote:

01:23:512 (1,2) - this overlap is kinda gross looking idk i don't really think so tbh
05:34:312 (1) - Maybe raise the volume a bit here, I can't hear anything xdd i guess it's not really an issue with the volume, but the samples. Ehh whatever, raised to 70% anyway.

rohit6

Rohit6 wrote:

05:18:037 (4,1) - ee holy i didn't even realize how distant that is, moved a little bit closer.

thanks guys
.osu https://puu.sh/wjZ2T/33f8c71769.osu
eh - - -
Its such a waste of work if this is for ranked , people not gonna try to FC it .

most cameilla maps break the PP system by so much ,
that a default higher PP reward of + 50-80 higher then its actual PP reward could be a great way to motivate people to try this properly.
Topic Starter
ProfessionalBox

shiro_Chaos-ryu wrote:

Its such a waste of work if this is for ranked , people not gonna try to FC it .

most cameilla maps break the PP system by so much ,
that a default higher PP reward of + 50-80 higher then its actual PP reward could be a great way to motivate people to try this properly.
What if there were people who played the game to enjoy it and not to gain ranks on leaderboards?
eh - - -
i see a map for deletion thanks, gets praised and posts nonsense chatbait , protip dont post at all
Flarezi
uhh did you change the mp3, does my hearing suck or is this slightly mistimed? on the slow parts i get much better acc with +20 offset

-edit it does sound correct in the editor so i guess its just me then
Einja

shiro_Chaos-ryu wrote:

i see a map for deletion thanks, gets praised and posts nonsense chatbait , protip dont post at all
pls enjoy game and don't play for pp thx
Akiyama Mizuki
06:09:074 (1) - must be snapped a 1/8 earlier
Xayler
So I like to check these pianos on songs somehow and I tend to find things... The notes what are currently snapped at the end are quite wrong (1/8 logic is pretty good, but they really don't land there tbh). Imo they need a red line, but I came up with the general snappings (1/12 & 1/16) and many notes should be now at least "very" close to it, maybe like +-1ms.
Some notes were right though, but I'll just post them all what are at the end as I already made the changes so I don't want to do it again.

Box 4 Box
06:03:412 (1) - should end at 06:03:580 - 1/16 snapping
06:03:730 (2) - should start at here with 1/16 snapping, should end at 06:03:918 - 1/16 snapping
06:04:087 (1) - should be fine
06:04:262 (2) - should be here with 1/12 snapping (somewhat I hear it like it fits there)
06:04:437 (1) - should be here with 1/12 snapping
06:04:637 (2) - should be here with 1/12 snapping
06:04:837 (1) - should be fine
06:05:062 (2) - should be fine
06:05:268 (1) - should be here with 1/16 snapping
06:05:512 (2) - should be fine (well does need a red line here imo)
06:05:755 (1) - should be here with 1/16 snapping
06:06:018 (1) - should be here with 1/16 snapping
06:06:312 (1) - should be here with 1/12 snapping
06:07:237 (1) - should be here with 1/16 snapping (1/12 also works)
06:07:362 (2) - should be here with 1/12 snapping
06:07:462 (3) - should be fine
06:07:762 (1) - should be fine
06:09:062 (1) - should start at here with 1/12 snapping (1/16 or 1/8 is kinda questionable as it starts later imo with it - this is also pretty much heard also)
06:13:162 - I also hear that the hold sound ends here, but you probably don't map/follow it

Feel free to decline them, but that's just what I hear and would be probably better right now without red lines...
Weber

Mazzerin wrote:

Lavender wrote:

overkill
hell no
best person to judge overkill levels EVARRRR
Topic Starter
ProfessionalBox

Xayler wrote:

So I like to check these pianos on songs somehow and I tend to find things... The notes what are currently snapped at the end are quite wrong (1/8 logic is pretty good, but they really don't land there tbh). Imo they need a red line, but I came up with the general snappings (1/12 & 1/16) and many notes should be now at least "very" close to it, maybe like +-1ms.
Some notes were right though, but I'll just post them all what are at the end as I already made the changes so I don't want to do it again.

Box 4 Box
06:03:412 (1) - should end at 06:03:580 - 1/16 snapping
06:03:730 (2) - should start at here with 1/16 snapping, should end at 06:03:918 - 1/16 snapping
06:04:087 (1) - should be fine
06:04:262 (2) - should be here with 1/12 snapping (somewhat I hear it like it fits there)
06:04:437 (1) - should be here with 1/12 snapping
06:04:637 (2) - should be here with 1/12 snapping
06:04:837 (1) - should be fine
06:05:062 (2) - should be fine
06:05:268 (1) - should be here with 1/16 snapping
06:05:512 (2) - should be fine (well does need a red line here imo)
06:05:755 (1) - should be here with 1/16 snapping
06:06:018 (1) - should be here with 1/16 snapping
06:06:312 (1) - should be here with 1/12 snapping
06:07:237 (1) - should be here with 1/16 snapping (1/12 also works)
06:07:362 (2) - should be here with 1/12 snapping
06:07:462 (3) - should be fine
06:07:762 (1) - should be fine
06:09:062 (1) - should start at here with 1/12 snapping (1/16 or 1/8 is kinda questionable as it starts later imo with it - this is also pretty much heard also)
06:13:162 - I also hear that the hold sound ends here, but you probably don't map/follow it

Feel free to decline them, but that's just what I hear and would be probably better right now without red lines...
current is just a placeholder for red lines I am fully aware of it
aevin
cool but where is ruruchi?
:( :( :( :( :(
Elira
sik map my dude
-Zel
04:09:337 (1,1) - these two use default hitnormals as there isn't a soft-hitnormal2
Halfslashed
No, I didn't forget.

[Ambivalence]
00:13:912 (1) - Having a 1/2 repeat for an entire measure contradicts the pacing you established for this slow part, especially since the player is doing nothing but holding down here. I recommend using two 1/2 double repeats instead, or some other similarly more intense rhythm.
00:28:312 (1) - I know you have a primarily drum based rhythm, but I will still point out that I think having such a strong melody sound on a slider tail is lame. If you agree, I would suggest changing this rhythm to a 2/3 slider + circle, since if you didn't change the repeats before, the player should be expecting this rhythm.
00:32:437 (2,1,1,1,1,1) - Having increased rhythm density with the 1/4 sliders is one thing, but as is, this spacing is overkill for this section of the map. I think if you used about half the spacing you're using, this would fit the intensity of the song better.
00:42:712 - It'd be cooler if you kiai flashed on every wub rather than each pair. By that I mean, the kiais would start on here and 00:43:162 - , probably ending 1/1 after each of those points.
00:48:712 (1,2) - As funny as it sounds, I think lowering the spacing here compared to stuff like 00:47:512 (1,2) - would emphasize the increasing intensity of the wubs here, since it requires a harsher movement to hit the successive sliders.
00:51:112 (1,2,3) - I can't hear anything that justifies this amount of cursor motion here. These are relatively unintense sounds and yet you have decently high SV, as well as crossing the playfield in 3 objects. This takes away emphasis from the much stronger drums in the next combo. I recommend reducing spacing/SV by quite a bit here, maybe even changing this to a 1/4 double reverse + circle.
00:51:712 (3,4,5,6) - Given the audience of this map, this sort of simplification just doesn't do the song justice. The snares are clearly following a 3/4 rhythm structure which is also supported by the kicks, so I suggest using a rhythm like this instead.
00:52:312 (1,2) - Similar comments as 00:48:712 (1,2).
01:32:512 (3,4) - You can show off the snare/kick more by using lower spacing here.
01:50:212 (2) - This should start a 1/4 tick later if you're following the wubs, but honestly i'd skip it, since you use drum based rhythm. Making 01:50:362 - a circle would probably work better here.
03:07:912 (1,2,3,4) - This spacing increase is really big to 03:06:712 (1,2,3,4) - and while there is a pitch increase, it cannot be compared in intensity to 03:06:562 (8,1) -. I suggest using about half the current spacing here.
03:08:512 (1,2,3,4) - This should use the same spacing as the previous 4 notes, since it has the same pitch/intensity.
03:11:512 (1,2,3,4,5) - This doesn't clearly follow drums or vocals. If you wanted to switch to vocals a rhythm like this would be more appropriate.
03:59:512 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1) - Based on the rest of your streams, this is out of place since you're using jumps with fairly uncomfortable angles for emphasis of the downbeats rather than direction change. At this bpm, these also are quite the difficulty spike when this is just the middle of a build up. I recommend using a stream with direction changes rather than a spontaneous split stream.
04:10:312 (1,2) - This harsh spacing reduction actually puts a ton of emphasis on 2, which is a very weak beat. You should change this to a 1/4 slider, since even a 3/4 clicking gap is more intuitive to play than this massive spacing decrease into a cross screen jump.
04:10:537 (1) - Since you don't seem too opposed to rhythms combining multiple instruments, how about making this slider three circles instead? It fits the intensity that the snares are providing better than what you have, which is just underwhelming.
04:25:312 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1) - I mean, mapping this with all circles is totally fine, but this spacing is crazy considering the drop in intensity in this section. I suggest nerfing this spacing quite a bit, maybe something closer to what you had for 04:03:112 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1) -
04:38:812 (1,2,3) - Stacking these triples is fairly underwhelming, I suggest spacing these out a bit more like you had at 02:24:262 (2,3,4) -
04:48:112 - More of a general issue I have is that your rhythm density is really high here since you're mixing the drum and harmony rhythms, so this makes 04:57:112 - feel like the pacing drops, but it's actually the opposite since this is where the buildup starts. It's hard to give you specific direction, but basically I think it'd be better if you either buffed the build up or nerfed the rhythm density a bit in this section (I think the latter will work better for you).
05:09:112 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - I think this half of the stream doesn't work too well as an accelerating stream, since the note strain of 16 circles at this bpm is already enough for the player to feel a gradual intensity increase. I suggest using a uniform spacing similar to 05:09:412 (1,2,3,4) - here, then basing the other half of the stream's accelerating spacing off of that, since the other half of the stream has more audible intensity increases between each set of 4.
05:35:812 (3,4,6) - Try ctrl+g on this rhythm, I think it fits what you're following and captures the strong beats more effectively here.
05:37:012 (1,2) - This 3/4 gap won't work well at all, since the player lands on a blue tick after completing the double. I suggest mapping 05:37:237 - since you did that at 05:36:037 and it's the same sound.
05:38:512 - No idea why you're just making some of these rhythms awkward at the end of the song when the rest of the map doesn't support it. Try adding a circle here - though it doesn't follow the same instrument you were following before.
05:44:512 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1) - If your intro is any indication, I think this would work better as 1/4 sliders
05:54:712 - Spacing is really overkill in this section compared to the intro, when they're both similar intensity. Byfar shouldn't be mapping these calm sections, man. Jokes aside, probably better to have spacing more consistent with the intro.

Good luck!
Pira
bonzi plz mentor me so the trinity will be complet
Topic Starter
ProfessionalBox

Opsi wrote:

bonzi plz mentor me so the trinity will be complet
you dont need mentoring after im don with ur ass
Bonzi

Halfslashed wrote:

[Ambivalence]
01:32:512 (3,4) - You can show off the snare/kick more by using lower spacing here. don't really think so, it changes hardly anything imo.
04:38:812 (1,2,3) - Stacking these triples is fairly underwhelming, I suggest spacing these out a bit more like you had at 02:24:262 (2,3,4) - doesn't really change anything unless i crank that spacing up imo, and cranking that spacing up was my original intention and it turned out beign a total mess so i did it this way.
05:09:112 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - I think this half of the stream doesn't work too well as an accelerating stream, since the note strain of 16 circles at this bpm is already enough for the player to feel a gradual intensity increase. I suggest using a uniform spacing similar to 05:09:412 (1,2,3,4) - here, then basing the other half of the stream's accelerating spacing off of that, since the other half of the stream has more audible intensity increases between each set of 4 i don't know if that's really an issue though, the speed up isn't really there until 05:10:312 (1) - happens , where you have a sharper angle between the streams.

ProfessionalBox wrote:

Opsi wrote:

bonzi plz mentor me so the trinity will be complet
you dont need mentoring after im don with ur ass
we can now say goodbye to opsi's mapping career
Sing

Halfslashed wrote:

[Ambivalence]
00:13:912 (1) - Having a 1/2 repeat for an entire measure contradicts the pacing you established for this slow part, especially since the player is doing nothing but holding down here. I recommend using two 1/2 double repeats instead, or some other similarly more intense rhythm. In this specific part theres a synth sound repeating the same note on the same rhythm as this, so that is the sound I am mapping to. Plus, something contradictory like this isn't really that bad; it adds contrast to a slow part of this song, which I admit have mapped it to a really high intensity and spacing than it suggests. Therefore,
I think this slider is perfectly justified.

00:28:312 (1) - I know you have a primarily drum based rhythm, but I will still point out that I think having such a strong melody sound on a slider tail is lame. If you agree, I would suggest changing this rhythm to a 2/3 slider + circle, since if you didn't change the repeats before, the player should be expecting this rhythm. I mean it was alternating repeats before at 00:25:912 (1) - , so yeah the player is expecting a repeat. Also, I'm alrdy sort of mapping the strong melody sound through the increasing slider velocity, so I think it's fine.
00:32:437 (2,1,1,1,1,1) - Having increased rhythm density with the 1/4 sliders is one thing, but as is, this spacing is overkill for this section of the map. I think if you used about half the spacing you're using, this would fit the intensity of the song better. Spacing isn't really overkill since the spacing before this was already increasing with the slider velocity, which at the same time in this section I am also resetting with each kickslider. I think the lowering of slider velocity compensates for the increased spacing of this pattern.
00:42:712 - It'd be cooler if you kiai flashed on every wub rather than each pair. By that I mean, the kiais would start on here and 00:43:162 - , probably ending 1/1 after each of those points. too much work LOL sorry, I think the kiai flashes enough, otherwise it might be too much xd
01:50:212 (2) - This should start a 1/4 tick later if you're following the wubs, but honestly i'd skip it, since you use drum based rhythm. Making 01:50:362 - a circle would probably work better here. I think its fine where it is, cuz at the time its placed is when the wub sound of 01:49:912 (1) - cuts off, and then the wub sound of 01:50:212 (2) - fades in. Also there is already a circle right after 01:50:437 (3) - and this rhythm of long slider to 1/2 slider to circle really helps ease the player into such an intense section.
03:07:912 (1,2,3,4) - This spacing increase is really big to 03:06:712 (1,2,3,4) - and while there is a pitch increase, it cannot be compared in intensity to 03:06:562 (8,1) -. I suggest using about half the current spacing here. I dont think half the spacing would work really well here, since im trying to blanket the 03:07:912 (1,2) - circles outside of 03:07:312 (1) - . However, I will try to reduce the spacing as much as I can while still retaining the blanket.
03:59:512 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1) - Based on the rest of your streams, this is out of place since you're using jumps with fairly uncomfortable angles for emphasis of the downbeats rather than direction change. At this bpm, these also are quite the difficulty spike when this is just the middle of a build up. I recommend using a stream with direction changes rather than a spontaneous split stream. I already adressed this before, but personally I really think its fine. It's out of place because its introducing streams in this section, because so far its only been triplets and kicksliders. Right before it there was a wub break that serves as a gap between the first half of the build up and the second half. A stream this divided and spaced really emphasizes that the next section will be really difficult. (which it is) Plus, all of my streams after have been linear so changing the direction would be pretty inconsistent of me.
04:48:112 - More of a general issue I have is that your rhythm density is really high here since you're mixing the drum and harmony rhythms, so this makes 04:57:112 - feel like the pacing drops, but it's actually the opposite since this is where the buildup starts. It's hard to give you specific direction, but basically I think it'd be better if you either buffed the build up or nerfed the rhythm density a bit in this section (I think the latter will work better for you). Ill just buff the buildup lul
ty for mod, here new .osu: https://puu.sh/wzvLQ/516eae4bde.osu
show more
Please sign in to reply.

New reply