HibikiDesu wrote:

Hai! I'm here for m4m. I'm still kind of a newbie mapper/modder so I can't guarantee everything i say will be perfect.

[..!]

1. 01:08:107 (2,3,4) - these notes go in a straight line while earlier and later iterations of the same rhythm use a different pattern. It seems a little out of place and alone. in this segment, within the boundaries of the two bookmarks, all singletap patterns are straight lines actually. the pattern you linked specifically is the same structure musically and mapping wise as 01:04:820 (2,3,4) -
2. 02:04:820 (6,1,2,3,4) - I think that 1-2 and 3-4 have spacing that is rather similar to the 1-2 spacing used in the previous combo. It might be hard to read. the spacing is a contrast. the combo before it gradually increased spacing while here it decreased to 50% of the previous notes.
   additionally it marks a new section with the light green combo colour as opposed to the dull colours that i used throughout the whole last segment of the song. ofc it's still not all easy to read, but that goes for the entire map really. but i think a change is quite readable on sight regardless
3. 02:05:025 (1,2) - Just a suggestion, but perhaps rotate this slightly to the left to point 2 into the center of the circular shape of the previous combo changed it to be parallel to 02:05:539 (5) - and repaired equal distances
4. 02:19:613 (7,8,9) - I think that this burst might be hard to read and play due to the nature of the constant 1/6th rhythm you use in this section. Perhaps turn it into a repeat slider. tbh i don't even hear why i put that there in the first place, it's just regular 1/6
5. 02:33:689 (1,2,3,4,5) - same as above. this is actually pretty easy to play to begin with and i gave it a dark red colour and a different spacing on top of it. this is fine
6. 03:33:586 (5) - I like this slider but I think it ends a little too soon. Slider-end is not on any sound it's on a sound of whatever brass or wind instrument that is. it's faint, but it's really the only place i can end it on if i don't want to go all the way to the next meassure, which i want to be on a regular note instead. it's not optimal for sure. but unless i get a better solution i'll keep it for the time being

Sorry it's not much. I didn't notice anything beyond those. I hope my limited knowledge was at least somewhat helpful. Good luck with the mapping

thanks for taking a look

I'm way late. My suggestions may apply in multiple places.

[General]
I'm pretty sure the artist should have a lowercase "p", but I couldn't find any sort of official source.
Somewhere along the lines you should find a diff name, though I don't know what to suggest since I can't seem to find lyrics.
After doing some playtesting, I'm going to recommend a change to AR8.8. This should make it easier to handle all of the spacing changes in your map, while also making it feasible to deal with some of your approach circle based patterns.

[..!]
00:18:074 (1) - Having this circle mapped takes away from the pause in instrumentals in this section. I'd recommend removing this to show off the pause in the instrumentals before the song picks up here.
00:21:532 (4) - This circle is getting overemphasized, since 00:21:121 (1,2,3) establish a counter clockwise direction and there is a direction change here. Combined with the spacing decrease and the need to accelerate back to hit 00:21:669 (5), this leads for out of place uncomfortable movement. I recommend placing 00:21:395 (3) in a straight line with 00:20:847 (3,2) and stacking 00:21:532 (4) under 00:20:847 (3).
00:21:532 (4,5) - Whether or not you take the above suggestion, this spacing is noticeably larger than 00:19:888 (4,5) without much an intensity increase. Reduce the spacing to match the earlier spacing.
00:25:367 (2) - Quite a strong piano beat but there doesn't really seem to be any sort of spacing increase to it. Increasing spacing to emphasize the strong piano would be nice.
00:28:655 (2) - Contrary to 00:25:367 (2), there's no strong sound here to support the spacing increase. Reduce the spacing to match what you had at 00:25:367 (2).
00:29:066 (5,6,7,1) - You start emphasizing piano later but these have no sort of spacing increases between them, which doesn't make too much sense to me. Try a spacing increase on a lower scale than what you have for 00:34:272 (1,2,3,4,1)
00:43:039 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15) - I had to play this a few times to be able to hit it properly. The stacking of circles 2/3 apart, three forms of spacings between 1/3 gaps, and 1/6 triples made this extremely difficult to play. Honestly, If you unstacked some of the 2/3 stuff like 00:43:724 (6,8) and made sure they didn't overlap, this would be much more predictably playable.
00:50:436 (1) - This guitar sound is strong but doesn't have much emphasis to it due to the small spacing. The triple before it adds some emphasis but since there are fairly strong sounds, making the spacing larger here would both make this more reflective of the intensity and more intuitive to play.
01:02:765 (1,2) - Obscuring the reverse arrow is unrankable, so you're going to need to find a different pattern. I suggest making these parallel instead, but you might be able to find something else that works for you.
01:37:833 (1,3) - 01:47:559 (4,1) - Another reverse arrow stack.
02:00:299 (1) - I'm not so sure about the SV here since the song dies down. I'd add an SV decrease (and of course scale down the hexagon) to reflect the intensity decrease, since it just feels really out of place with how fast it is as is.
02:02:559 (1,2,3,4) - These are some fairly big jumps considering the intensity of this section overall, and there isn't too much emphasis to 02:03:175 (4) since all of the spacing is generally similar between objects. I'd lower the spacing here and perhaps use a pattern that provides more contrast between 1,2,3 and 4.
02:13:037 (8,9) - 02:25:984 (8,9) - I don't think players will see this expecting to play it in a circular manner, so i'd recommend Ctrl+G here to make it more in line with what the players will expect. This also gives some more emphasis to 02:13:037 (8).
02:42:729 (2,3) - With this level of spacing, it becomes very difficult to read the approach circles to play this. This section has a cool idea but it's impractical when combined with the perfect stacking. Not to mention, this sort of spacing between 1/4 triples hasn't been introduced prior to this, so to jump suddenly into this sort of spacing combined with the reading difficulty from the 1/2 stacks makes it unfitting in the map imo. My suggestion would be to unstack 02:42:832 (3,4) and create a line formation between 02:42:729 (2,3,4). The resulting pattern takes advantage of approach circles, but makes it easier to handle due to the lower overall spacing.
03:26:599 - 03:32:764 - The rhythms in this section of the song are similar, with fairly drastic pitches and intensity, but your spacing doesn't reflect that well, since although there are spacing decreases and increases, they aren't very noticeable in play. I suggest having larger spacing changes between the pairs of measures to reflect these pitch changes better.
04:31:942 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - Visually this pattern makes a lot of sense but 04:32:147 (3,4,5,6) is much harder due to the even visual spacing when combined with the relatively low AR. Not impossible to hit, but in terms of spacing this is also reduced in emphasis compared to 04:31:736 (7,8,1) by a noticeable amount, which is weird especially since they're both emphasizing the strong drum. I don't know of an easy way to fix this, but i'm going to recommend having the spacing between 04:31:838 (8,1) - and 04:32:250 (4,5) match. This requires a change of this visual arrangement.
04:34:408 (1,4) - This reverse arrow stack might be fine but definitely risky.
04:43:859 (4,5) - 1/2 stacking after 1/4 is extremely difficult to handle, and while not the first time you've introduced it in the map is harder than anything you had the kiai right before this. I'd unstack these, it'd be even be more appropriate for this to have even spacing with 04:43:654 (2,3,4).
04:44:783 (3,4,5,1) - This is the first time in the map that you have stacked circles 1/2 apart in the middle of a stream. Additionally, you have a spacing increase to 04:45:092 (1). What makes stacking circles 1/2 apart in the middle of a stream work is that the player can see that the stream continues after the bend, making it hard but feasible to predict the path. This spacing increase makes this pattern nearly unreadable, I was only able to hit this by memorization or luck. I don't really see it as appropriate to have 04:44:783 (3,5) stacked, since a spacing increase makes a lot more sense with the rest of the map.
05:40:571 (2,3,4,5,6,7) - The beats are there and there's nothing really wrong with the playability here, but the instrumentals drop in intensity, so i feel like undermapping this section would work really well to show that off. The way I'd do it would be to just map the 1/2 vocals.

Good luck!

Halfslashed wrote:

I'm way late. My suggestions may apply in multiple places.

[General]
I'm pretty sure the artist should have a lowercase "p", but I couldn't find any sort of official source. yeah, i've seen it both ways, but seeing how all ranked paraoka songs have a lower case p i'll change it to that
Somewhere along the lines you should find a diff name, though I don't know what to suggest since I can't seem to find lyrics. definitely,
just haven't figured one out yet and couldn't find translated lyrics anywhere either
After doing some playtesting, I'm going to recommend a change to AR8.8. This should make it easier to handle all of the spacing changes in your map, while also making it feasible to deal with some of your approach circle based patterns. approach circle based patterns.. i wasn't aware i had any of those. i'll keep it for now as i prefere it like this personally. but i might go up to the mentioned 8.8 at max later on

[..!]
00:18:074 (1) - Having this circle mapped takes away from the pause in instrumentals in this section. I'd recommend removing this to show off the pause in the instrumentals before the song picks up here. fair enough, appliead. the breathing isn't all that necessary to be represented after all
00:21:532 (4) - This circle is getting overemphasized, since 00:21:121 (1,2,3) establish a counter clockwise direction and there is a direction change here. Combined with the spacing decrease and the need to accelerate back to hit 00:21:669 (5), this leads for out of place uncomfortable movement. I recommend placing 00:21:395 (3) in a straight line with 00:20:847 (3,2) and stacking 00:21:532 (4) under 00:20:847 (3). hesitant, but sure, point taken. it does make sense
00:21:532 (4,5) - Whether or not you take the above suggestion, this spacing is noticeably larger than 00:19:888 (4,5) without much an intensity increase. Reduce the spacing to match the earlier spacing. definitely. assimilated it, but it's still not quite the same, should be small enough a difference now though
00:25:367 (2) - Quite a strong piano beat but there doesn't really seem to be any sort of spacing increase to it. Increasing spacing to emphasize the strong piano would be nice. stacked on 00:26:189 (8) -
00:28:655 (2) - Contrary to 00:25:367 (2), there's no strong sound here to support the spacing increase. Reduce the spacing to match what you had at 00:25:367 (2). flipped around the previous slider to make the drop-off smaller and arranged things around it accordingly
00:29:066 (5,6,7,1) - You start emphasizing piano later but these have no sort of spacing increases between them, which doesn't make too much sense to me. Try a spacing increase on a lower scale than what you have for 00:34:272 (1,2,3,4,1) the piano later stood out to me with it's intensity while it blends in on that regard here, so i merely made it have another shape from the previous drum beats in order to differentiate. but listening to it a few more times i can see them being set on an equal standing. changed the pattern and it's surroundings a bit.
00:43:039 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15) - I had to play this a few times to be able to hit it properly. The stacking of circles 2/3 apart, three forms of spacings between 1/3 gaps, and 1/6 triples made this extremely difficult to play. Honestly, If you unstacked some of the 2/3 stuff like 00:43:724 (6,8) and made sure they didn't overlap, this would be much more predictably playable. i like how it works now actually including it being hard to read as the transition and it's distortions support it imo. the only thing you might be able to talk me into would be stacking 00:43:998 (8) - on 00:44:546 (14) - instead. but i'll leave it as is for now as i personally prefere the current version and it's look
00:50:436 (1) - This guitar sound is strong but doesn't have much emphasis to it due to the small spacing. The triple before it adds some emphasis but since there are fairly strong sounds, making the spacing larger here would both make this more reflective of the intensity and more intuitive to play. the emphasis is very focused on the drums here, the guitar is merely a means of resettig the pattern to the same point again as it works at an increasing level. i think it's given enough point as to not need a destructive spacing to the pattern. except if you want ot propose an entirely different pattern with similar focus on other parts of the music. then i might look into it again
01:02:765 (1,2) - Obscuring the reverse arrow is unrankable, so you're going to need to find a different pattern. I suggest making these parallel instead, but you might be able to find something else that works for you. i used it this way because i think the rhythm had been established and it would be readable regardless, and noone i watched playing had any issues with it, hence i wouldn't judge it as ambiguous to read, which is the concern the rankig criteria states with the rule
01:37:833 (1,3) - 01:47:559 (4,1) - Another reverse arrow stack. also on both of these i think i've established the concept of using reverse arrows for these notes in this part well enough, so it shouldn't be ambiguous and thus not not violate the rule in it's intent, even if it's wording implies such. ill hold off from changing it untill i (if i can) get the rest into a rankable state and bns convince me otherwise
02:00:299 (1) - I'm not so sure about the SV here since the song dies down. I'd add an SV decrease (and of course scale down the hexagon) to reflect the intensity decrease, since it just feels really out of place with how fast it is as is. i can see how it's unsettling, chipped away a third of the sv
02:02:559 (1,2,3,4) - These are some fairly big jumps considering the intensity of this section overall, and there isn't too much emphasis to 02:03:175 (4) since all of the spacing is generally similar between objects. I'd lower the spacing here and perhaps use a pattern that provides more contrast between 1,2,3 and 4. lowered the spacing and used the same spacing between 1,2,3, keeping the same pattern
02:13:037 (8,9) - 02:25:984 (8,9) - I don't think players will see this expecting to play it in a circular manner, so i'd recommend Ctrl+G here to make it more in line with what the players will expect. This also gives some more emphasis to 02:13:037 (8). they serve as a transition and i think they do their job well on that, also i don't know why i'd give more emphasis to 8, it doesn't need it imo
02:42:729 (2,3) - With this level of spacing, it becomes very difficult to read the approach circles to play this. This section has a cool idea but it's impractical when combined with the perfect stacking. Not to mention, this sort of spacing between 1/4 triples hasn't been introduced prior to this, so to jump suddenly into this sort of spacing combined with the reading difficulty from the 1/2 stacks makes it unfitting in the map imo. My suggestion would be to unstack 02:42:832 (3,4) and create a line formation between 02:42:729 (2,3,4). The resulting pattern takes advantage of approach circles, but makes it easier to handle due to the lower overall spacing. this kind of pattern has actually occured in a less straining fashion already here 01:57:285 (2,3,4) -
along with double stacks just a bit earlier and 01:06:463 (2,3,4) - . their not 1/4 but they play out the same way. so i wouldn't call it entirely unintroduced. even if, it is also a different part of the song, calling for new patterns. additionally the 1/4 are hinted on with the stacking, to me that's enough to catch them. however, i do see how the spacing is two tads large though, but i'm afraid i don't quite understand your suggestion as i can't figure which note you'd want to put in the middle of the line. i definitely want the third note to get more impact than the previous two and don't want a constant spacing between all three. if you care to rephrase, i'll look into it
03:26:599 - 03:32:764 - The rhythms in this section of the song are similar, with fairly drastic pitches and intensity, but your spacing doesn't reflect that well, since although there are spacing decreases and increases, they aren't very noticeable in play. I suggest having larger spacing changes between the pairs of measures to reflect these pitch changes better. not sure if i understand what exactly you're pointing at, but if i get it right, it's about the spacing changes between each interval? because imo it's reflected enough mostly with the spacing of the singles. changing it more would end up forcing me to use unproportianal spacing on the least intens iteration from the bursts to the singles. if you have a better alternative, tell me about it
04:31:942 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - Visually this pattern makes a lot of sense but 04:32:147 (3,4,5,6) is much harder due to the even visual spacing when combined with the relatively low AR. Not impossible to hit, but in terms of spacing this is also reduced in emphasis compared to 04:31:736 (7,8,1) by a noticeable amount, which is weird especially since they're both emphasizing the strong drum. I don't know of an easy way to fix this, but i'm going to recommend having the spacing between 04:31:838 (8,1) - and 04:32:250 (4,5) match. This requires a change of this visual arrangement. i don't really pay much heed to the drum in this section in the first place in terms of emphasis, it really focuses on the distorted vocals, as result i have the drum on sliderends at times even. additionally the change of direction already provides extra emphasis. what i could do would be to just ctr g 04:32:353 (5,6,7,8) - , which is how i had it originally even, but i prefere the emphasis that comes with a distinction of the direction change over the higher spacing in a circular fashion. another way would be to additionally ctrl g them inindividually after doing so as a pair. as for readability, it's a messy part of the song, so i think it's fine for it to be a bit tricky, it's still not exactly the hardest part to read in the map anyway. for now i think it's fine, but i'll be on the look out, so i'll keep it and see if a way comes to mind to preserve all the points it covers now while adding spacing.
04:34:408 (1,4) - This reverse arrow stack might be fine but definitely risky. never had anyone stumble on it and it fits with the earlier concepts, i'll take the risk
04:43:859 (4,5) - 1/2 stacking after 1/4 is extremely difficult to handle, and while not the first time you've introduced it in the map is harder than anything you had the kiai right before this. I'd unstack these, it'd be even be more appropriate for this to have even spacing with 04:43:654 (2,3,4). the industrial drum thing really supports having a complete stop in motion here imo while the sound between it and the next one just seems like something additional, not worth adding or building any momentum on unlike the 1/4 on every second occurance. imo it plays pretty well as it is for that reason
04:44:783 (3,4,5,1) - This is the first time in the map that you have stacked circles 1/2 apart in the middle of a stream. Additionally, you have a spacing increase to 04:45:092 (1). What makes stacking circles 1/2 apart in the middle of a stream work is that the player can see that the stream continues after the bend, making it hard but feasible to predict the path. This spacing increase makes this pattern nearly unreadable, I was only able to hit this by memorization or luck. I don't really see it as appropriate to have 04:44:783 (3,5) stacked, since a spacing increase makes a lot more sense with the rest of the map. it's a unique part of the song and it supports this pattern imo as it calls for the direction change with the same sounds in pairs around a stronger beat on the full beats. and here's the point where i state my opinion on sightreadability. it might and likely will confuse players at first,
but it's not hard to figure out the concept behind it, so it doesn't need memorization of individual objects or timings but merely of a concept, which is much easier and more feasable to do. so i dare say it's alright as it plays as intended and honestly, imo it's the best part in the map
05:40:571 (2,3,4,5,6,7) - The beats are there and there's nothing really wrong with the playability here, but the instrumentals drop in intensity, so i feel like undermapping this section would work really well to show that off. The way I'd do it would be to just map the 1/2 vocals. drop in intensity?
..i don't see that at all tbh. also undermapping here would be pretty inconsistent with how i've handled the rest of the map, wouldn't it? besides i don't like undermapping in general

Good luck!

thanks for the great mod, much appreciated. you caught a lot of things i missed completely

edit: unclarities have been cleared up via irc and changes were applied accordingly

hi! from my m4m q

[..!]
try using AR9 or above because the way you stack here makes it hard to read when using AR8.6
00:00:506 (2,2) - check stack
00:10:574 (1,2) - blanket could be prettier
00:11:396 (3,4) - also check this position: 00:11:396 (3) - tail doesn't make a good looking blanket
00:28:244 (1) - could look better, maybe move it's tail a little closer to 00:27:970 (6) -
00:32:354 (2) - why not placing nc here? instead of 00:32:080 (1) - you could place ncs like 1/4 even tho i would say that it's more like 1/3 every 2/4 so i think you need to recheck combos
00:34:272 (1,2,3,4) - doesn't look good
00:35:915 (2,3) - move somewhere so they don't touch 00:36:189 (4) - tail
00:44:409 (12,13,14) - unnecessary
00:44:683 (15) - nc? (not pointing it again)
00:52:628 (5,1) - too close
01:36:737 (3,4) - ^
01:39:751 (1,4) - ^ try keeping it the same as 01:33:176 (1,4) -
02:04:820 (6,1,2) - hard to distinguish rhythm here, try fixing spacing a little
02:50:024 (3,4,5,6) - i think you should use a kickslider here at least at these 02:50:024 (3,4,5) - because of the sudden rhythmic value change
02:53:928 (5,6,1) - increase spacing here? but it's nothing to emphasize here
02:59:887 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - not sure tho, looks fine but those ds changes could really trick players
03:18:723 - missing note here?
03:26:599 (1,2,3,4,5) - check spacing
03:41:805 (5,7,1) - check stacks
03:53:928 (2,3) - check blanket
03:54:955 (5,6) - ^
04:02:969 (4,5) - could be moved better according to 04:02:147 (2,3) - like

04:48:791 (5,6,7,8) - spacing
05:55:118 (3,4) - blanket

very well made map
good luck

-Mo-d queue thing

..!
- 00:18:382 (1) - In this section you're leaving a 2/3 gap before every NC, except here. I think it would look less out of place if this wasn't a NC in my opinion.
- 00:35:915 (2,3,4) - This has a weird overlap from the stacking when in game.
- 00:41:943 (4,1) - I don't feel it's appropriate to stack this since killing the momentum seems pretty out of place with how you've mapped this section so far.
- 00:44:135 (9,10,11) - I'd shorten this spacing to look like 00:44:409 (12,13,14) so it's easier to read as a triple (or if you want it to be difficult to read, make that latter triple spaced the same).
- 00:57:422 (1,2) - It seems more appropriate to keep the flow moving rather than stacking these to be honest, since the music doesn't really change too much. Stacking this below 00:57:148 (5) would be cool.
- 01:03:176 (2) - Covering the reverse arrow like this is against the ranking criteria rules now.

Ranking Critera wrote:

Reverse arrows on sliders must not be completely visually obstructed by other hitobjects with the default or beatmap-specific skin. Covering up reverse arrows on sliders can result in sliders being ambiguous to read.

- 01:19:203 (7) - I think the NC is supposed to be here.
- 01:25:778 (7) - NC here too.
- 01:37:833 (1,3) - Another unrankable stack.
- 01:47:970 (1) - Yeah.
- 02:05:025 (1,2,3,4) - This sort of rhythm is already very hard to predict after all the rhythm changes that have been happening here. I would make these sliders so that the rhythm is easier to follow, or at least make overlap these to indicate that the rhythm is changing again.
- 02:17:558 (10) - The flow is already very hard to follow, so I would rather this be more forgiving in the reading too by unstacking this.
- 02:20:641 (2,4) - Unrankable stack.

Ranking Criteria wrote:

Every slider must have a clear and visible path to follow from start to end. Sliders which overlap themselves in a way that makes any section unreadable or ambiguous cannot be used, such as burai sliders and hold sliders without straightforward slider borders. When perfectly overlapping two slider bodies, the first slider must be fully faded out before the second slider is fully faded in.

- 02:22:079 (2,3,4,5,6,7) - As before, the flow is already difficult to follow so I wouldn't make this so cluttered.
- 02:25:367 (3,5,6,7,8,9,1) - This also just looks really cluttered and I don't think many players will find deciphering this fun. The flow overall could be considered pretty uncomfortable too because of the speed changes required to hit 8-9-1.
- 02:26:189 (1,1) - You might aswell avoid this overlap.
- 02:30:195 (2,3,4,5,6,7) - I would space the pairs (2,3 ; 4,5 ; 6,7) out further so that the flow is a bit easier to read.
- 02:42:421 (9,1,2) - This is pretty confusing since the 1-2 stack makes it look like the 1/4 rhythm is played from the 9 rather than there being a seperate two notes beneath this. Same for the other places in this section too.
- 02:50:024 (3,4,5) - I'd reduce this spacing either further to indicate the 1/6 better.
- 03:33:586 (5) - It makes more sense to end the slider on 03:36:051 to me.
- 04:29:784 (2,3) - I'd say you might aswell avoid the overlapping with the slider bodies.
- 04:43:756 (3) - The hitsounds on this is too quiet compared to the other notes around it so the feedback from it is very minimal.
- Silencing the slider bodies would be worth it for places like 05:49:739 in my opinion.

_Kise wrote:

hi! from my m4m q

[..!]
try using AR9 or above because the way you stack here makes it hard to read when using AR8.6
00:00:506 (2,2) - check stack moved it one pixel down i guess.. things like that tend to get undonw just by osu's pixel rounding though,
no idea if it'll hold
00:10:574 (1,2) - blanket could be prettier mildly adjusted
00:11:396 (3,4) - also check this position: 00:11:396 (3) - tail doesn't make a good looking blanket also adjusted
00:28:244 (1) - could look better, maybe move it's tail a little closer to 00:27:970 (6) - now it's equal spacings
00:32:354 (2) - why not placing nc here? instead of 00:32:080 (1) - you could place ncs like 1/4 even tho i would say that it's more like 1/3 every 2/4 so i think you need to recheck combos 2/4, 1/4? there is no 1/4 beat in this section. might look over combos again later on though just to be sure they follow what i want them to
00:34:272 (1,2,3,4) - doesn't look good because? i think it does look good and more importantly plays as intended
00:35:915 (2,3) - move somewhere so they don't touch 00:36:189 (4) - tail moved them so the upper note is in the place the lower one was before
00:44:409 (12,13,14) - unnecessary necessary
00:44:683 (15) - nc? (not pointing it again) i'd have to make it a combo of one note as i nc on bigger than usual gaps, so i'd rather not
00:52:628 (5,1) - too close why? same distance as on the other vocals of the same phrase
01:36:737 (3,4) - ^ it gets enough emphasis as is already (contrast, angle choice of object, incresed spacing
01:39:751 (1,4) - ^ try keeping it the same as 01:33:176 (1,4) - they are pretty much the same, aren't they?
02:04:820 (6,1,2) - hard to distinguish rhythm here, try fixing spacing a little the spacing is a contrast. the combo before it gradually increased spacing while here it decreased to 50% of the previous notes.
additionally it marks a new section with the light green combo colour as opposed to the dull colours that i used throughout the whole last segment of the song. ofc it's still not all easy to read, but that goes for the entire map really. but i think a change is quite readable on sight regardless
02:50:024 (3,4,5,6) - i think you should use a kickslider here at least at these 02:50:024 (3,4,5) - because of the sudden rhythmic value change a kickslider wouldn't really fit into the pattern structure of the map and i use little to no polarity concepts int he map anyway, the density of the objects in terms of stacking makes it readable enough imo, it's not an easy readers map to begin with
02:53:928 (5,6,1) - increase spacing here? but it's nothing to emphasize here the middle note of the second tripple is a heavier note than the one of the previous and the last note is a crash, additionally it serves as a build up to a change
02:59:887 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - not sure tho, looks fine but those ds changes could really trick players it's actually not hard to follow for players at all if they got the speed since the spacing of it is generally low already and they can more or less even just go in a line. seen a few testplays on it and it the ds and shape didn't seem to cause issues
03:18:723 - missing note here? indeed, added
03:26:599 (1,2,3,4,5) - check spacing slightly adjusted
03:41:805 (5,7,1) - check stacks fixed
03:53:928 (2,3) - check blanket done
03:54:955 (5,6) - ^
04:02:969 (4,5) - could be moved better according to 04:02:147 (2,3) - like i assume you mean to make them have equal spacingto the slider heads, can do

04:48:791 (5,6,7,8) - spacing seems fine to me?
05:55:118 (3,4) - blanket addressed

very well made map
good luck

thanks for modding

-Mo- wrote:

-Mo-d queue thing

..!
- 00:18:382 (1) - In this section you're leaving a 2/3 gap before every NC, except here. I think it would look less out of place if this wasn't a NC in my opinion. i can see that, applied
- 00:35:915 (2,3,4) - This has a weird overlap from the stacking when in game. yes, fixed from the last mod
- 00:41:943 (4,1) - I don't feel it's appropriate to stack this since killing the momentum seems pretty out of place with how you've mapped this section so far. hmm, it's supposed to resemble 00:38:655 (3,4) - and doesn't have the heavier instruments going as in the first half of the section. and i've been viewing it not as much a momentum stop as it is just a slow down, but i can see what you mean. i could reverse the order of objects to keep movement going
- 00:44:135 (9,10,11) - I'd shorten this spacing to look like 00:44:409 (12,13,14) so it's easier to read as a triple (or if you want it to be difficult to read, make that latter triple spaced the same). going with the first option, if anything it should be the second one that is more spaced if i want a difference due to the pich, no idea why i had it the other way tbh. they're the same now
- 00:57:422 (1,2) - It seems more appropriate to keep the flow moving rather than stacking these to be honest, since the music doesn't really change too much. Stacking this below 00:57:148 (5) would be cool. point taken, suggestion applied
- 01:03:176 (2) - Covering the reverse arrow like this is against the ranking criteria rules now.

Ranking Critera wrote:

Reverse arrows on sliders must not be completely visually obstructed by other hitobjects with the default or beatmap-specific skin. Covering up reverse arrows on sliders can result in sliders being ambiguous to read.

yeah, i'm aware, but i think that rule uses unfortunate phrasing. " Covering up reverse arrows on sliders can result in sliders being ambiguous to read." is the main concern of the rule, see how it sais "can". imo the rhythm of the section is established at this point and the symmetry of the patterns along with no new notes coming up after it reaches teh covered part is enough to not make it ambiguous. so to me, as long as the reason the rule was made is satisfied, the phrasing of the rule itself is irrelevant. so untill i get more input on how that opinion stands up to others, i'll keep it for the time being (mainly because i really enjoy playing those)
- 01:19:203 (7) - I think the NC is supposed to be here. can do i guess, swaying between having it there and having it after teh gap though
- 01:25:778 (7) - NC here too. two even with enother one two notes later
- 01:37:833 (1,3) - Another unrankable stack.
- 01:47:970 (1) - Yeah. indeed, same point, same argument, i'll where it goes and what i can/must do
- 02:05:025 (1,2,3,4) - This sort of rhythm is already very hard to predict after all the rhythm changes that have been happening here. I would make these sliders so that the rhythm is easier to follow, or at least make overlap these to indicate that the rhythm is changing again. imo there are enough indicators to make this readable as explained in earlier mods, going with a stubborn approach here
- 02:17:558 (10) - The flow is already very hard to follow, so I would rather this be more forgiving in the reading too by unstacking this. the pattern is pasically a repitition of 02:09:339 (4,5,6,7) - in nature and it's gonna be hard to find any other place that makes it work as intended for those notes. i could try putting 02:17:558 (10,11) - with 10 on the end of 02:17:969 (3) - but imo that's even harder to follow. gladly taking a second opinnion on that if you care to give one
- 02:20:641 (2,4) - Unrankable stack.

Ranking Criteria wrote:

Every slider must have a clear and visible path to follow from start to end. Sliders which overlap themselves in a way that makes any section unreadable or ambiguous cannot be used, such as burai sliders and hold sliders without straightforward slider borders. When perfectly overlapping two slider bodies, the first slider must be fully faded out before the second slider is fully faded in.

wasn't aware it fell into that category, did something about it
- 02:22:079 (2,3,4,5,6,7) - As before, the flow is already difficult to follow so I wouldn't make this so cluttered. did something along with the above mentioned change
- 02:25:367 (3,5,6,7,8,9,1) - This also just looks really cluttered and I don't think many players will find deciphering this fun. The flow overall could be considered pretty uncomfortable too because of the speed changes required to hit 8-9-1. it resembles 02:12:832 (6,7,8,9) - which covers the same concepts. the spacing change is wanted as i creates a nice contrast. and since it's so condensed, the flowchanges don't require large movement, hence it all happens without much momentum, the uncomfortable movement works quite well due to that imo, similarly so how it works with 04:28:654 (1,2,3,4) - . so yeah, the concept i want to stay the same, but if you have a specific suggestion on what other placing might work, i'll definitely concider it
- 02:26:189 (1,1) - You might aswell avoid this overlap. i don't think it's jarring in any way with 02:25:778 (6,7,8,9,1) - sharing the same angles from the axis and the same spacing from each line
- 02:30:195 (2,3,4,5,6,7) - I would space the pairs (2,3 ; 4,5 ; 6,7) out further so that the flow is a bit easier to read. they're supposed to be less seperated than the regular pairings, so only the turns handle that here while it can be played or seen as a coherent s shape with the drums in mind
- 02:42:421 (9,1,2) - This is pretty confusing since the 1-2 stack makes it look like the 1/4 rhythm is played from the 9 rather than there being a seperate two notes beneath this. Same for the other places in this section too. i can see it being confusing at first but the tripple with a jump in the end was introduced with 02:40:983 (1,2,3) - with the same sound causing the jump and they all have an nc on their starts to seperate them from the 1/2 in the same stack. so once you get the concept it should be readable enough. what worries me more is the spacing matter. you can read what i had to say on that in the response to halfslashed's mod
- 02:50:024 (3,4,5) - I'd reduce this spacing either further to indicate the 1/6 better. hmm, the spacing is basically already halfed between each note, i'd think it's enough, makes for a more complete pattern too. but i'll make it smaller if more voices demand it i suppose
- 03:33:586 (5) - It makes more sense to end the slider on 03:36:051 to me. i can see that, applied
- 04:29:784 (2,3) - I'd say you might aswell avoid the overlapping with the slider bodies. it preserves the hexagrid structure of it like this and the overlap isn't jarring in any way imo
- 04:43:756 (3) - The hitsounds on this is too quiet compared to the other notes around it so the feedback from it is very minimal. added drum claps to these over the section
- Silencing the slider bodies would be worth it for places like 05:49:739 in my opinion. no reason not to, i'll add a silent sliderslide i suppose

have my gratitude for this splendid mod

mod ..!

00:18:792 (3) - doesn't seem to represent anything in the music. delete? otherwise you are blurring the contrast between 00:18:382 (2,3) -
00:19:751 (3,4) - you can make this into one 1/3 slider because 00:19:888 (4) - is less powerful, which is very appropriate for slidertail
00:25:778 (5,6,8,1) - unless you want it to be hard-to-read on purpose, i would not stack 1/3 and 2/3 rhythm in the same section
00:27:422 (2,3,4,5,6,7) - this part sounds better grouped with 3s instead of pairs
00:28:244 (1) - i personally dont think ~90 degree slider bends by iteself look good (it has to be very sharp like 120 - 150, or slightly like 30 - 60 for simple bends imo). Of course, if you have a bunch of ~90 deg sliders, they look good as a group, but it is not here.
00:29:614 (3) - this tail is on a "strong beat" and should be a circle, not a tail.
00:31:258 (6,7,8) - i think this should be a 5 stream all the way to 00:31:463 and 00:31:532 (1) . I say this because it seems like you want to follow drums here, but if you do you need to click 00:31:463 too.
01:14:272 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,1,2,3) - for these jumps, try doing a bunch of similar jumps of this form, you will get much better emphasis:

obviously disregard the structure; it looks bad and doesnt have the other ones. but 01:14:272 (1) - far from 01:14:409 (2,3) - but 01:14:409 (2,3) - close to each other is good for this section.
01:58:107 (6,7,8,3,4,5) - this is inconsistent with each other but the music for both dont requires too much different for each other
02:01:874 (2,3) - i would put this closer to the tail, not in the middle.
02:05:539 (5) - this should not be a slider cause clicking 02:05:641 is pretty important for establishing groups of 4 just like 02:06:052 (4,5,6,7,1,2,3,4) -
02:09:135 (2,3,4,5,6,7) - stuff like this is good for practice maps but cannot look this "bad" for a polished map
04:42:011 (2,3) - i know you want close, but i still wouldnt overlap cause just a bit looks not ok

hmm, sorry that this might not help much

JeZag wrote:

mod ..!

00:18:792 (3) - doesn't seem to represent anything in the music. delete? otherwise you are blurring the contrast between 00:18:382 (2,3) - oh, indeed it's unnecessary.. wonder how noone caught that one yet
00:19:751 (3,4) - you can make this into one 1/3 slider because 00:19:888 (4) - is less powerful, which is very appropriate for slidertail all of those notes deserve a hit and the spacing/angles deal with the differentiation and emphasis. a slider could also work, but i prefere it this way
00:25:778 (5,6,8,1) - unless you want it to be hard-to-read on purpose, i would not stack 1/3 and 2/3 rhythm in the same section they serve an emphasis purpose with the complete stop after a larger jump. also while i don't make it hard to read on purpose, i do not mind if it turns out that way
00:27:422 (2,3,4,5,6,7) - this part sounds better grouped with 3s instead of pairs our opinions differ there
00:28:244 (1) - i personally dont think ~90 degree slider bends by iteself look good (it has to be very sharp like 120 - 150, or slightly like 30 - 60 for simple bends imo). Of course, if you have a bunch of ~90 deg sliders, they look good as a group, but it is not here. yeah, was more of a make shift thing anyway, changed it
00:29:614 (3) - this tail is on a "strong beat" and should be a circle, not a tail. i often use slider ends on those "strong beat" throughout the map when they're from an instrument i'm not focusing. using hitburst principles rather than active-pasive ones
00:31:258 (6,7,8) - i think this should be a 5 stream all the way to 00:31:463 and 00:31:532 (1) . I say this because it seems like you want to follow drums here, but if you do you need to click 00:31:463 too. clearly sounds like two tripples to me. but they're not quite on the ticks i have them on now. not on the ones you linked either though, it's a weird rhythm. i put it as it sounds right and will see how people complain
01:14:272 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,1,2,3) - for these jumps, try doing a bunch of similar jumps of this form, you will get much better emphasis:
https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/8113063
obviously disregard the structure; it looks bad and doesnt have the other ones. but 01:14:272 (1) - far from 01:14:409 (2,3) - but 01:14:409 (2,3) - close to each other is good for this section. not sure what you mean with the last sentence. but i did change up the last few notes of the pattern to be more coherent. keeping the lines of three though because they're simply more firring with the rest of the map
01:58:107 (6,7,8,3,4,5) - this is inconsistent with each other but the music for both dont requires too much different for each other it sure does call for the difference. but apparently i missed a note before the second tripple, making it a quint. maybe that lead you to think i mapped something else. so i added that note
02:01:874 (2,3) - i would put this closer to the tail, not in the middle. i think it's fine in the middle. espeially since it's only a double on the piano unlike the hihat tripple, so it does as a nice depiction of that
02:05:539 (5) - this should not be a slider cause clicking 02:05:641 is pretty important for establishing groups of 4 just like 02:06:052 (4,5,6,7,1,2,3,4) - 02:05:744 (1,2,3) - this would just be an odd one out either way then with only three. also the hit on the head of that note is much more important on the same instrument than the tail. having a double transit into pair of three transiting into a pair of four also works out quite nicely, by which i'd take it even if it wasn't like that, because i don't care much for introductions like that. i find them unimportant and hindering the song representation often enough.
02:09:135 (2,3,4,5,6,7) - stuff like this is good for practice maps but cannot look this "bad" for a polished map can't say i find that bad looking in any way, but i changed it anyway
04:42:011 (2,3) - i know you want close, but i still wouldnt overlap cause just a bit looks not ok looks ok enough to me

hmm, sorry that this might not help much

it helped enough, thank you for modding

[ Trademark]
I tried, good luck!

Mir wrote:

[ Trademark]

1. 00:44:683 (15) - Would probably NC this since the stronger sound falls on this.
   
2. 01:37:833 (1,3) - Covering the reverse slider like this is unrankable.
   
3. 02:50:025 (3,4,5,6) - Hard to read since the 6 is also 1/6 but it looks like it' the start of a 1/4 pattern instead so players might drop off of the 02:50:162 (5) - too early.
   
4. 03:18:792 (2) - This note is stronger than the others so maybe make some sort of spacing difference to show it?
   
5. 03:31:635 (1,2,3,4) - Same spacing as 03:29:991 (1,2,3,4) - even though it's a lot stronger? Seeing as you used spacing like 03:26:600 (1,2,3,4,5) - before you could either buff or nerf it depending.
   
6. 03:40:573 (1,3) - Overlap looks inconsistent with your visual concept here it seems.
   
7. 04:01:737 (1,2,3) - Could be circles since these are all distinct 1/2 sounds.
   
8. 04:28:244 (5,6,7,8) - Spacing increases pretty massively here but the song hasn't really changed all that much imo. Maybe move 7 and 8 closer together.
   
9. 04:29:785 (2,1,3,5) - Overlap looks kind of meh, but... it happens a lot so idk.
   
10. 04:32:148 (3,4,5,6) - Plays unexpectedly compared to the rest of your doubles since these are really close together instead of spaced. Maybe swap positions of 04:32:354 (5,6,7,8) - ?

My biggest like... thought (?) about this map is the spacing seems so random at places like, sometimes you emphasize things with streamjumps like 04:20:744 (2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - has none and then 04:23:313 (3,4,5,6) - has streamjumps and I don't really see much in the music that calls for such a drastic change in emphasis. My opinion of course. If you had used higher spacing as well you might have been able to avoid some of the pixel overlaps that you created like 04:29:888 (1,3,4,5).

I tried, good luck!

handled things via irc

o/

• 00:18:245 (1,2) - the start of that slider (2) should be closer to the 1, with that low AR AND the placement of this slider 00:18:929 (3) - (closer to the head of the previous slider) makes it soooo confusing, it doesn't looks like its 1/3
  00:19:477 (1) - is this nc necessary? if thats the case, why not adding nc on 00:18:929 (3) - that should make it easier to read | as Halfslashed you're using approach circle based patterns because, try playing the map with HD, that will be impossible to read (also, because the stack leniency)
  00:27:422 (2) - move to 303/256? that would better to read
  00:27:634 - should delete this, you're following drums right? there's not any drum sound here, and considering the AR and the placing, that would be better
  00:29:888 - this sould be clickable
  00:32:628 (3,4) - hmm stack these? just like you did on 00:35:093 (2,3) - that should be reallly easier to read and follow the music better
  00:34:272 (1,2,3,4) - this looks a bit messy try another pattern :thinking:
  00:51:121 (3) - stack this with 00:50:573 (2) - that looks better imo, and it helps readability since 00:50:573 (2) - dissappear before 00:50:710 (4) - :thonkang:
  00:53:587 (3) - stack this with 00:52:765 (6) - that would play better
  01:07:285 (6) - it would be better if this was a slider, since there's not any sound on 01:07:422 (7) - (ok, there's that bass but It doesn't worth a circle), a slider instead would make it better
  01:23:724 (5) - move like https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/8156082 looks better :thonkong:
  01:26:189 (1) - shouldn't have nc , nc should be on 01:26:052 (1) - (just like 00:26:189 (8,1,2,1) - )
  01:30:710 (1,1) - 01:37:285 (1,2,1,2) - unconsistent NCing ehh.. should fix
  01:55:915 (3,4) - should stack these (keep consistency)
  01:57:559 (4,5,6,7,8) - spacing between 1/3 and 1/6 is the same and well, thats confusing a lot, 01:57:011 (1,5) - ctrl+g these?
  02:00:299 (1) - this slider should end on 02:01:737 - and a circle on 02:01:806 -
  02:13:552 (2) - move this closer to sliderend
  02:22:593 (7,1) - transition here it's really.. bad, the other parts like this flow well, but not this one
  02:36:977 - Missed a circle here
  and here 02:37:799 -
  02:37:696 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - hmmm rythm here it's weird you know.. it's like youre following the main rythm of the song but also ignoring the song, ignoring the snare sounds that are.. the most noticeble sound on there, should add a triplet here 02:35:230 (1,2) - 02:36:052 (1,2) - 02:37:696 (1,2) - and 02:39:340 (1,2) - but ehh yeah, if you want to keep it like this without all these triplets, you should remove this 02:37:080 (2,3,4) -
  02:40:881 (6,1) - uhh isnt this spacing tooo much? I'm asking because.. apparently, this is on porpuse but you know.. it's still too much spacing
  02:41:395 (4) - NC this, you change the rythm from 02:40:984 (1) - but keep using same stacks
  02:42:422 (9,1,2,3) - is this on porpuse? I mean.. this spacing? 02:42:730 (2,3) -
  02:40:984 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,1) - tbh in all this section the rythm it's ehh.. really weird, unlike this 02:34:409 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - or at least fix this? 02:42:628 (1,2,3) -
  02:43:244 (5,6,7,8,9) - and why suddenly you're not mapping thes triplets, tbh the only part that should have a triplet is here 02:43:450 (6,7) - the rest are like.. off the rythm completly
  05:31:942 (4,3) - stack? kappa
  05:44:373 (9) - should delet

hopy you find something helpful :thonkung:

Itasha_S13 wrote:

o/ \o

• 00:18:245 (1,2) - the start of that slider (2) should be closer to the 1, with that low AR AND the placement of this slider 00:18:929 (3) - (closer to the head of the previous slider) makes it soooo confusing, it doesn't looks like its 1/3 i can't say i see an issue with the ar and placement to be perfectly honest. it's an explosive start, so the spacing is relatively high . as for it being mistakeable with 1/4, for once thing it's the start of a new segment,
  the only preceding part was a half-bpm intro. you can't really tell what the speed is going to be like after a slow intro, so anything would be abotu equally demanding to catch. having a start like this even helps establishing the general pace of the upcoming bit of mapping. then besides the point, but going by testplays, that's a note i've not seen anyone have issues with on their first play, by which i don't really give two dimes on sightreadability in the first place as long as it reflects the song and blends with the general concepts.
  00:19:477 (1) - is this nc necessary? if thats the case, why not adding nc on 00:18:929 (3) - that should make it easier to read | as Halfslashed you're using approach circle based patterns because, try playing the map with HD, that will be impossible to read (also, because the stack leniency) again i don't really see it to be a problem at all, not even readability wise, by which i don't shy away from having harder to read patterns anyway. furthermore, turning on hitanimations tells me that the previosu object is long gone once the second one in the same position pops up, so i wouldn't even call it hard to read. then you mention hd. mods are not to be taken into concideration while mapping except maybe for drain sections on hr. (though i will say i have had it played with hd and did so myself too and didn't see issues with those in specific). also in this section i use ncs on every 1/1 gap if you haven't noticed
  00:27:422 (2) - move to 303/256? that would better to read and it would also not work with the angle while not emphasising the hard beat properly while on top not working with the pairs of two i want to use on this rhythm. besides making it easy to read is none of my concerns, i don't purposefully make it hard, but i don't mind if it is, as long as it's not unreasonable, which imo it isn't
  00:27:634 - should delete this, you're following drums right? there's not any drum sound here, and considering the AR and the placing, that would be better disregarding the comment on the ar, the drum does take a pause there. the thing i follow with the pattern is the unique synth rhythm here though as distinguishable with the pattern layout.
  00:29:888 - this sould be clickable hitburst concepts like this are used throughout the map. but that aside, it still works better for contrast if it isn't clickable by which it isn't even an important note to what i'm following, which is a transition
  00:32:628 (3,4) - hmm stack these? just like you did on 00:35:093 (2,3) - that should be reallly easier to read and follow the music better good call, made them into stacks and did a ctrl g on 00:32:354 (2) - while i was at it
  00:34:272 (1,2,3,4) - this looks a bit messy try another pattern :thinking: i don't see how it's messy. i like how it looks and works
  00:51:121 (3) - stack this with 00:50:573 (2) - that looks better imo, and it helps readability since 00:50:573 (2) - dissappear before 00:50:710 (4) - :thonkang: it's fine readability wise, but it's in the wrong place anyway, it should be where you suggested to put it from the pattern's construction, so i changed it
  00:53:587 (3) - stack this with 00:52:765 (6) - that would play better i like the stop into jump initiating the vocal chain and it's a reoccurring concept that i will keep as i think it plays just fine and as intended
  01:07:285 (6) - it would be better if this was a slider, since there's not any sound on 01:07:422 (7) - (ok, there's that bass but It doesn't worth a circle), a slider instead would make it better there is a bass guitar and a ride sound on it actually, but neither are very relevant, so i'll just remove 7
  01:23:724 (5) - move like https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/8156082 looks better :thonkong: because..? neither option makes for aligned angles,
  which is good as they're not part of the same rhythm, but i prefere to keep the sharper angle to the next movement
  01:26:189 (1) - shouldn't have nc , nc should be on 01:26:052 (1) - (just like 00:26:189 (8,1,2,1) - ) actually more just like 01:19:203 (1,2,3) -
  01:30:710 (1,1) - 01:37:285 (1,2,1,2) - unconsistent NCing ehh.. should fix fixed
  01:55:915 (3,4) - should stack these (keep consistency) they aren't and shouldn't be stacked as they have both vocals on them as opposed to the occasion where there are stacks
  01:57:559 (4,5,6,7,8) - spacing between 1/3 and 1/6 is the same and well, thats confusing a lot, 01:57:011 (1,5) - ctrl+g these? interesting idea, but it doesn't emphasise things as i want it and messes with the directions and angles. the spacing on those is completely fine as a good number of 1/3 notes have had this kind of spacing already and the pattern serves as a differentiation of instuments as all the 1/3 in this hexagon are different instruments.
  it's quite fine to read too as on this density it's really easy to tell when there's an extra note in between while the rhythm already implies it on top of it.
  by which still, some reading difficulty is nothing i'd shy away from
  02:00:299 (1) - this slider should end on 02:01:737 - and a circle on 02:01:806 - it isn't quite what you're writing, but what i had was wrong indeed. changed it
  02:13:552 (2) - move this closer to sliderend slider leniency takes care of the distinction between the way onto on off from it. moving it closer would only worsen the angle to the next object
  02:22:593 (7,1) - transition here it's really.. bad, the other parts like this flow well, but not this one flipped it around
  02:36:977 - Missed a circle here
  and here 02:37:799 - no. none of the hi-hats were mapped, if i did there would be a lot more missing
  02:37:696 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - hmmm rythm here it's weird you know.. it's like youre following the main rythm of the song but also ignoring the song, ignoring the snare sounds that are.. the most noticeble sound on there, should add a triplet here 02:35:230 (1,2) - 02:36:052 (1,2) - 02:37:696 (1,2) - and 02:39:340 (1,2) - but ehh yeah, if you want to keep it like this without all these triplets, you should remove this 02:37:080 (2,3,4) - mapping all those tripples would be overload for what how i want this part to play. i wouldn't really be able to give proper emphasis to the vocals either. besides they really seem no more important that everything else in the part. as for the tripple i do have, it's on a different, unique set of sounds and hence i want to use it. works nicely in favour of variation too at that
  02:40:881 (6,1) - uhh isnt this spacing tooo much? I'm asking because.. apparently, this is on porpuse but you know.. it's still too much spacing it is, changed it
  02:41:395 (4) - NC this, you change the rythm from 02:40:984 (1) - but keep using same stacks i have an nc on every tripple rather than after it. 1/4 and 1/2 don't really have the same stacks either for that reason
  02:42:422 (9,1,2,3) - is this on porpuse? I mean.. this spacing? 02:42:730 (2,3) - yes, that is indeed on purpose
  02:40:984 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,1) - tbh in all this section the rythm it's ehh.. really weird, unlike this 02:34:409 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - or at least fix this? 02:42:628 (1,2,3) - it's mostly one the guitar with accentuation on the vocals except for the last one which is on transitioning drums. the last one is wrong nonetheless though as i notice, so i changed that up
  02:43:244 (5,6,7,8,9) - and why suddenly you're not mapping thes triplets, tbh the only part that should have a triplet is here 02:43:450 (6,7) - the rest are like.. off the rythm completly that tripple is the only hi-hat one, which is what i skipped in the previous section already. the rest is as explained above
  05:31:942 (4,3) - stack? kappa kappa all you want, that's actually a good idea, made it work
  05:44:373 (9) - should delet no, why

hopy you find something helpful :thonkung: did

thanks for the mod

Hi! M4M
surprised that paraoka sings such song
Since i don't play taiko, ill only mod ..! .
I'm not sure if this mod will help, but I don't like the song (not the map)
hope you finish the map well!

A BCDe wrote:

Hi! M4M
surprised that paraoka sings such song
Since i don't play taiko, ill only mod ..! .

..!

00:11:601 (4) - i think you should give a NC here to give an impact about the slow slider. i don't think further implications are necessary since the part is slow to begin with. so you won't overshoot untill you can't catch the first slidertick anymore except you're really not paying attention
01:30:299 (4,5,6) - make this right. seems pretty right to me
01:58:381 (8) - the distance is not right. I prefer to stack 7 and 8. If you can handle it, you can use it if you like the previous one, but i think there are not much people who can make this beautiful as it looks like. not sure what you mean with the second sentence, but the spacing is fine as is really. it's the same distance as 01:57:559 (4) - in the same pattern for example, just layed out in a different way due to being on a different instrument
02:08:313 (4) - Why don't you make this a circle and place it far from 3 and 5? (and give 5 a NC) because that would not follow what i want to follow in that part, which is the 1/4 as quite easily visible
02:10:778 (1) - push it a bit left to make a straight line with 3, 4 and 5 that would create several other unsightly overlaps and improperties that aren't really fixable and stand out way more. i prefere to just have one that doesn't really matter
02:11:909 (6,7,8,1,2) - I'm not sure about this. I'd rather give bigger DS to these and place notes without stacking. they work the same way as everything else in the map, including the stacking which is a basic concept that is seem everywhere. varying the spacing would make little sense unless you care to explain why it would be more appropriate
02:17:559 (10) - No Finish here why not. i used it in places i use whistles on other occasions since it's not a ride here but a hit. i'll turn them into soft finishes instead though so they're not as intrusive
02:25:778 (6,7,8,9) - the distance between these are too small. please make DS larger, and i prefer using sliders here. it's the same concept as 02:12:833 (6,7,8,9) - but in a bit less intense, hence witha lower ds. a slider wouldn't let me hit all those low drum hits that i want to capture properly
02:26:600 (2) - this should be in an extended line of 1, considering the map. unlike where i actually used 1/4 beats though, there isn't any 1/4 beat on this one. hence no notes
02:27:011 (3,4,5) - make this symmetric; you used 0, 60, and 240 degrees, but i prefer 0, 120, and 240. you should recheck your angles,
but i get the point. wihpped something up
02:29:477 (4,5,6) - the vocal is yell?ing at this point, so I strongly recommend you use a 1/2 slider instead of these circles. drums. refer to the rest of the part
02:33:689 (1,2,3,4,5) - this is using 1/6. figured it out
02:50:025 (3,4,5) - Use slider instead. You might want to mimic the pattern just before, but I don't think the triplet with different DS will be accepted. the ds between the first and third note of the quad are the same as between any of the pairs of two in the pattern. there is just another note between it , increasing the visual density, implying that this is in fact not regular 1/4. i don't want to use a slider as it goes against how the rest of the part works
04:03:998 (1,2,3) - place these apart, at least a bit. This actually ruins the pattern. i don't see how it ruins anything. additionaly putting ds between them just increases the momentum of the part, which doesn't follow the intention
04:32:148 (3,4) - ctrl + g, please. this doesn't make sense unless DS is big. reason being? i don't see the issue with the spacing on those.
besides ctrl g would not work with the follow up
04:42:011 (2,3,4,5) - this can be better
it's a gradual increase and that's how i want it to be. i don't want equal spacing, it's not
"better" to me
04:44:683 (2,3,4,5) - I don't think stacking 3 and 5 is right; i could only see such things in old maps. there's a whole bunch of old concepts in this map actually. for reasons i'm not changing this for, see my reply to halfslashed's mod
04:46:326 (3,4,5,6) - ^
04:49:511 - there's no note here, not like others. fixed, also in a previous iteration
04:51:258 (3,4,5,6) - select these, and move 3 to the right of 2. only this is not placed like others before. or, move 2 a bit farther from 3 and 6, and give same distance from 3 and 6 applied equal distances
04:54:854 (1,2,3) - make these linear. it does not harm the map when it starts from 1 and moves to right(and a bit up). that would not capture the drums as intended and would mess up the pattern both visually and folow angle emphasis wise
04:55:778 (1) - place it on the line of 5, 6, and 7 (it means, place on the line which is made by 5, 6, and 7). Do not move 2 if you do. i see no reason to do that, especially not from how i handle stacks like these elsewhere
05:22:902 (1,2,3,4) - same as above 04:44:683 -
05:33:585 (2,3,1,2) - I don't think this makes sense. Head of 2 should not be on 1 imo, and considering the movement, 3, 1, and 2 should be on somewhere that's not leaned too much to the edge. they're fine on top of each other going after the instrumental which strongly supports a stop of motion. as for the other notes, i don't see why it's bad for them to be in the playfield area they are in
05:33:996 (1,2,3,4,5) - Also, this is very unstable. unstable?

I'm not sure if this mod will help, but I don't like the song (not the map)
hope you finish the map well!

thanks for the mod. as a little piece of advice for your modding, always give a reason as to why a change needs to happen except if it's painfully obvious or explained already. the basic template for each point should be : flaw/suggestion - reason - (if possible) alternative

Though I doubt this will be much, I have a few name suggestions:

[*] Transience
[*] Otolithic Pulse
[*] Aural Impermanence
[*] Megalolithic
[*] Metastasis

Taiko names (if you need them):

[*] Taikolith
[*] Metamorphic Oni

hi, from queue

[ aural impermanence]

1. 00:05:848 (1,2,3,4,5) - the hexgrid thing is off by a bit
2. 00:26:189 (8,1) // 00:44:683 (1,2) - these are the only 2/3 stacks in this section, making this a little hard to read
3. 01:04:409 (1,2,3,4) // 01:07:696 (1,2,3,4) - maybe make this consistent with 01:05:230 (1,2,3,4) - etc?
4. 03:55:778 (7,8) - maybe 1/1 slider instead since it's kinda similar to 03:49:203 (7) -
5. 04:55:573 (7,1,2) - this could be confusing to play since different rhythms same stack etc

wow i really like this map have a star

good luck!

newton- wrote:

hi, from queue

[ aural impermanence]

1. 00:05:848 (1,2,3,4,5) - the hexgrid thing is off by a bit true actually. but 00:06:053 (2) - needs to be on 72° coming from the square notes and being reused afterwards. i think i managed something with a pentagon instead though
2. 00:26:189 (8,1) // 00:44:683 (1,2) - these are the only 2/3 stacks in this section, making this a little hard to read untill here all the longer than 1/3 gaps are indicated with an nc, so i think it's readable enough
3. 01:04:409 (1,2,3,4) // 01:07:696 (1,2,3,4) - maybe make this consistent with 01:05:230 (1,2,3,4) - etc? the difference between those two concepts musically is, that the first two have a constant set of 5 syllables, which the other instances have sets of 4 with a gap between the first and second, which is bridged by a snare instead, hence the stack away from the slider tail. so yeah, i don't want them to be the same while staying similar. i noticed that these are inconsistent with that idea though as result 01:11:395 (2,3,4,2,3,4) - . so i changed those
4. 03:55:778 (7,8) - maybe 1/1 slider instead since it's kinda similar to 03:49:203 (7) - similar on the vocals, yes. but there is a difference, and it's in the intrumentals. 03:55:778 (7,8,9) - are on three distinct and sharppiano notes and only those, while the other instance is backed with a held foreground orchestral note (and only a single piano note)
5. 04:55:573 (7,1,2) - this could be confusing to play since different rhythms same stack etc could yeah, but the map isn't exactly straight forward in general in the first place and i really want a complete stop on that transition. then this matters less to me personally, but it's also a concept that has appeared previously in the map, and it's backed up with an nc

wow i really like this map have a star

good luck!

thanks for the mod as well as the star

also taking aural impermanence as difficulty name as suggested by eon fox after reading the meaning and it's connection with the song : "Aural Impermanence is based on the fact that it is a song based around phases that are temporary (aural denotes a relation to sound)"
spelled in lower case just because the song title and artist are lower case as well

Concepts are unique and interesting, but is this map even rankable? It looks like a technical oddloop with higher AR.

i did ask a bn, who i believe to be and am told is knowledgable enough in more unorthodox mapping styles, before even trying to get mods for it on whether it's worth a shot. so since the answer was positive, here i am, giving it a shot, hoping for the best.
tbh though, i don't get the reference to oddloop. i don't see the two maps having much in common aside sharing the usage of some concepts that were more common a few years back than now. i think the approaches are vastly different.

Deramok wrote:

i did ask a bn, who i believe to be and am told is knowledgable enough in more unorthodox mapping styles, before even trying to get mods for it on whether it's worth a shot. so since the answer was positive, here i am, giving it a shot, hoping for the best.
tbh though, i don't get the reference to oddloop. i don't see the two maps having much in common aside sharing the usage of some concepts that were more common a few years back than now. i think the approaches are vastly different.

that's why i said it was a technical oddloop. the beginning patterns gave off that vibe

Hi! Answering the m4m even I forgot to change the map on my mod request. The one you modded isn't supposed to be modded until I remap xD but isn't your fault so :p. I hope this can help you!

[General]

1. Current audio file is 256 kbps. Maximum allowed is 192 kbps use some online mp3 converter to change it then recheck the offset :p
2. I'm not sure if current bg size is rankable you should ask some BN about this (since isn't on Taiko at least I think).
3. Volumes:
   
   1. 03:29:991 - I think this volume is lower than 50% 30 or sth like that should be fine.
   2. I think Kiai should use 80 or even 90. It's clearly louder than 00:18:382 - where you use 70
4. I think current artist should be paraoka feat. haru*nya. If you're mostly using current standard ranked version metadata remember it's too old (7 years ago around). Be sure to ask some BN about this :p
5. I'm not totally sure but as I've read somewhere this song becames from 'C78' releases so you could add it into tags?

[aural imperance]

• 
  Well I'll take a fast look on here only cuz I feel it already fine

1. I think OD 8.6 & AR 8.6 doesn't fit at all together; I mean one of them is focused on some DT plays (not for 5.76*) and other on NM's. I think you should increase AR to 9 so it would be a little more fun. It's totally up to you but take a rethink about it
   00:11:601 (4,1) - nice effect
2. 02:00:299 (1,2) - this spacing is a little hard, can force sliderbreaks easily without any strong reason (it's such the slow part so isn't supposed to)
3. 02:11:292 (4,5) - this break a little the current great flow, I think you could move the slider to something like x400 y88 so current cursor movement isn't going to be that affected with this at all (remake the slider tho ofc)
   Well since I don't like touching so much the mapping style of each player I think it's currently fine according to what you want to do. I liked this more old mapping style tbh
   This is going to be hard

[taiko]

1. Disable Widescreen Support since you're not using SB (also is unticked on Standard ver.)
2. I think OD 7 and HP 6 are too high for Marathon taiko map. I suggest you using OD 5/6 and HP 5 instead.
3. Since you're following compose I think 00:03:382 (10,11) - should be kats considering you're making ascendant pitch on 00:02:560 (8,9) -
4. 00:23:998 (32,33,34) - you should use kkk instead since they all have the same pitch
5. 00:25:504 (42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49) - this long chain of dons doesn't feel great while playing :p
6. 00:30:984 (79,80,81,82,83,84) - they're strange... I mean they fit better at using kkd ddk so you can emphatise 00:31:532 (85) - at big note
7. 00:31:532 - this section is really hard for me to get what you're trying to follow... seems like lot of random-chains of notes D: if you can reply here I can take a review about it but I think you could give a relook on this
8. 01:29:203 (451,452,453) - make this kdd
9. 01:29:751 (456) - make this k
10. 01:29:683 - add don here these three comments make a great drum follow here
11. 01:36:463 - from here you could add some notes to emphatise section change. On all but this one you're following drums by using ddd triples or sth like that :p
12. 01:45:504 01:50:436 - here you lost consistency at all. I mean you were fine at following vocals but here circle positioning loses sense at all D:
13. 01:54:546 (588,589,590,591,592,593,594) - you should delete some note here (01:55:230 (593) - maybe) since it doesn't fit at all. Also it breaks a little the consistency with 01:58:929 (611,612,613,614,615) -
14. 02:33:587 (801,802,803,804,805,806,807) - this fill great ad dddkkkd so you emphatise last don (also monocolour triples on 1/6 are such a great way always xD)
    I think that's all for now. Current map is fine and fun! I will be back I'm 90% sure but exactly now I can't since I need to go out sigh. Maybe later then!

Best of lucks!! ~

xfraczynho wrote:

Hi! Answering the m4m even I forgot to change the map on my mod request. The one you modded isn't supposed to be modded until I remap xD but isn't your fault so :p. ah, unfortunateI hope this can help you!

[General]

1. Current audio file is 256 kbps. Maximum allowed is 192 kbps use some online mp3 converter to change it then recheck the offset :p
2. I'm not sure if current bg size is rankable you should ask some BN about this (since isn't on Taiko at least I think). will look into these
3. Volumes:
   
   1. 03:29:991 - I think this volume is lower than 50% 30 or sth like that should be fine.
   2. I think Kiai should use 80 or even 90. It's clearly louder than 00:18:382 - where you use 70both aplied
4. I think current artist should be paraoka feat. haru*nya. If you're mostly using current standard ranked version metadata remember it's too old (7 years ago around). Be sure to ask some BN about this :p just from looking at other recent paraoka maps, makes sense, adding it to the artist rather than having the name in the tags
5. I'm not totally sure but as I've read somewhere this song becames from 'C78' releases so you could add it into tags? also adding circle and albun name while i'm at it

[aural imperance]

• 
  Well I'll take a fast look on here only cuz I feel it already fine

1. I think OD 8.6 & AR 8.6 doesn't fit at all together; I mean one of them is focused on some DT plays (not for 5.76*) and other on NM's. I think you should increase AR to 9 so it would be a little more fun. It's totally up to you but take a rethink about it nothing in the map has no intention to focus on dt plays. i personally prefere the ar on the lower side as. both for just personal preference and as you mention later it takes a bit of an older style,
   which goes along nicely with lower ar. if really necessary i can make a compromise for 8.8, but i'd rather not.
   00:11:601 (4,1) - nice effect
2. 02:00:299 (1,2) - this spacing is a little hard, can force sliderbreaks easily without any strong reason (it's such the slow part so isn't supposed to) changed it into a reverse slider with the head a bit closer to the tail of the previous slider as i never really liked having a 1/8 tripple there anyway
3. 02:11:292 (4,5) - this break a little the current great flow, I think you could move the slider to something like x400 y88 so current cursor movement isn't going to be that affected with this at all (remake the slider tho ofc) i use straight lines on all these occasions, so the that suggestion isn't going to work with the concept. besides i don't really see an issue with the flow on it.
   Well since I don't like touching so much the mapping style of each player I think it's currently fine according to what you want to do. I liked this more old mapping style tbh
   This is going to be hard

[taiko]

1. Disable Widescreen Support since you're not using SB (also is unticked on Standard ver.) unticked
2. I think OD 7 and HP 6 are too high for Marathon taiko map. I suggest you using OD 5/6 and HP 5 instead. aplied
3. Since you're following compose I think 00:03:382 (10,11) - should be kats considering you're making ascendant pitch on 00:02:560 (8,9) - alright
4. 00:23:998 (32,33,34) - you should use kkk instead since they all have the same pitch fair enough
5. 00:25:504 (42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49) - this long chain of dons doesn't feel great while playing :p i wouldn't know what else to map there though since that's just what the drums do
6. 00:30:984 (79,80,81,82,83,84) - they're strange... I mean they fit better at using kkd ddk so you can emphatise 00:31:532 (85) - at big note made them into dkk kdd k since i think the pitches are better covered that way
7. 00:31:532 - this section is really hard for me to get what you're trying to follow... seems like lot of random-chains of notes D: if you can reply here I can take a review about it but I think you could give a relook on this the focus is on the drums, i don't know how else i could properly represent them without a chain this long. if you know a good way, i'm definitely interested
8. 01:29:203 (451,452,453) - make this kdd changed to dkk to be on stronger drums
9. 01:29:751 (456) - make this k for the contrast between the low drum and the cymbal i'd rather have it be a d. not sure why you'd go k either
10. 01:29:683 - add don here these three comments make a great drum follow here there is no distinct note in the song o that tick though
11. 01:36:463 - from here you could add some notes to emphatise section change. On all but this one you're following drums by using ddd triples or sth like that :p well there are no drum tripples in the song in that section. and i fear if i use more notes on the drums between the vocals it will become indistinguishable and unclear on what it's following
12. 01:45:504 01:50:436 - here you lost consistency at all. I mean you were fine at following vocals but here circle positioning loses sense at all D: i just switched to the ride cymbals for variety's sake, is that a bad idea? i'm not too familiar with how switches are generally handled in taiko
13. 01:54:546 (588,589,590,591,592,593,594) - you should delete some note here (01:55:230 (593) - maybe) since it doesn't fit at all. Also it breaks a little the consistency with 01:58:929 (611,612,613,614,615) - well those two are different rhythms given by the song, they shouldn't be the same, so they aren't. as for the removal of notes, that pattern describes the alternating of the piano and the drum with the kat and don relations, i found that to work fairly well myself actually
14. 02:33:587 (801,802,803,804,805,806,807) - this fill great ad dddkkkd so you emphatise last don (also monocolour triples on 1/6 are such a great way always xD) will do
    I think that's all for now. Current map is fine and fun! I will be back I'm 90% sure but exactly now I can't since I need to go out sigh. Maybe later then!

Best of lucks!! ~

thank you for modding despite me modding a map of yours that wasn't supposed to be modded and it being the kind of mod it is

ar setting is definitely wrong for this map lol
00:01:738 (3,1) - this doesn't flow really good due to both the flow from the circle and how the slider shape works. I see you probably wanted to emphasize the sound on 00:01:944 (1) - by making a different direction from the single tap, but could've been better imo. https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/8676472 is one of the ideal flows I can provide here, give it a try.
00:08:314 (1,2,3,4,5) - this isn't too bad, though they all can have a larger spacing each other because whenever you use a 1/1 stable rhythm with circles (1/2 in this case), players would tend to like larger spacing than just something shares same distance snap among the rhythm gaps. you know, we all don't use the same spacing for all 1/1, 1/2, 1/4, even 1/8. https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/8676484
00:31:275 (6,7,8) - would rather stack this onto the slider head of 00:30:710 (2) - from beginning of the triplet for better looking.
00:33:861 (2,3) - I was expecting for something like ctrl g'd stuff here lol
00:34:272 (1,2,3,4,1) - uh, this is kinda messy, could do a circular pattern that is way more clearn.
00:37:148 (9,1) - switch the new combo? this kinda bothered me reading it. also it will look better.
00:47:559 (1,2,3) - you might wanna do a pattern more flat since this currently conflicts with the pattern 00:47:148 (2,3,4) - so. https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/8676505
00:49:066 (1,2,3,4,5) - can i have a straight stream :v
00:50:436 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,1) - I think more linear stuff here can work with how you've been patterning in the map pretty much better but not really sure, perhaps just my preference. https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/8676518
01:07:422 - I see you didn't make any circles here to make a difference between the vocals belong and not, but could take a circle at least for the drum, it still can differentiate from the concept where you used 3 circles to fill the vocals. https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/8676532
01:11:395 (2) - stack it on the slider end, this looks messy in game play lol.
01:13:176 (2,3) - is there any reason behind using a different rhythm from 01:13:861 (2,3) - yet spacing is much closer? I mean, the rhythm being different isn't a bad idea but this is a pain for reading ablity. perhaps try the circle 01:13:861 (2) - to stack it on the sliderend.
01:14:272 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - they should be more like split by 3 from (1), that 01:14:272 (1) - has been obstruction for it.
01:17:422 (1) - I prefer this to be isolated from the pattern, I think this makes reading harder in a bad way :/
02:02:559 (1) - uh, not stacking this on the previous slider makes only this looks worse imo.
02:05:025 - THE DIFF SPIKE IS REAL. seriously, the spacing usage from this part isn't way too much inappropriate. the map itself had somehow concept that regarding to reading ability, but this suddenly turned into some kind of shit. I'm not even trying to be rude, the fact made the map x10k times worse. I won't mention anything about this because I'm not capable to manage it and strongly disliked it.
02:37:183 (3) - feels this is out of place because if you make the part "only singletap" thing it will be highlight the music more and actually cool.
03:18:724 (1) - removing this to ignore the sound seems more reasonable for playing ability though.
03:26:600 (1,2,3,4,5) - this is literally only one good thing about spaced stream, it represent the music pretty well yet giving play ability fun.
04:09:751 (1) - you can reduce the volume for the ticks, don't make them inaudible though.
04:16:326 - and yeah, this is also a lot better than the first place where spaced streams came out. this still matches with the spike of the music nicely, and using a really good type of patterning. therefore 04:23:313 (3,4,5,6) - this kind of pattern that looking doublets and completely a jump (not like "spaced") isn't fitting this with the rest of patterning here.

---
the concept for first 2 minutes of the entire diff and the first 8s of the first kiai were both quite interesting, and therefore the spaced streams ruined everything. while I was modding the first 2 minutes of the map I actually had a will to bubble it if some of the patterns used a polish, but it has completely gone once the spaced streams part came across. well, might be interesting if it's for whatever not ranked, but if you ever try to get it ranked, I can say this isn't fitting to the ranked section, at very least for me. I'm quite sad because of the reason; good luck though.

Delis wrote:

ar setting is definitely wrong for this map lol i don't know, i like it. and the words wrong and right get pretty ambiguous around this area anyway. i for example concider the ar on many many new maps too high for my part. i can compromise to an 8.8 though in the end if really needed, but am not really willing to go higher unless someone presses the matter with for me conclusive, relevant and sensible arguments.
00:01:738 (3,1) - this doesn't flow really good due to both the flow from the circle and how the slider shape works. I see you probably wanted to emphasize the sound on 00:01:944 (1) - by making a different direction from the single tap, but could've been better imo. https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/8676472 is one of the ideal flows I can provide here, give it a try. took a lot of redjusting of later parts but i did something
00:08:314 (1,2,3,4,5) - this isn't too bad, though they all can have a larger spacing each other because whenever you use a 1/1 stable rhythm with circles (1/2 in this case), players would tend to like larger spacing than just something shares same distance snap among the rhythm gaps. you know, we all don't use the same spacing for all 1/1, 1/2, 1/4, even 1/8. https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/8676484 i think i prefere the current way on this one. reason being that the song supports lower spacing with it's calm nature and larger spacing wouldn't work too well with the contrast i use to indicate the pairs of two. additionally the contrasts also help me in making it less like a fluid motion but snappier instead, which i feel suits the vocals with their distinctness
00:31:275 (6,7,8) - would rather stack this onto the slider head of 00:30:710 (2) - from beginning of the triplet for better looking. looks fine either way to me so i guess i might as well
00:33:861 (2,3) - I was expecting for something like ctrl g'd stuff here lol i wonder why
00:34:272 (1,2,3,4,1) - uh, this is kinda messy, could do a circular pattern that is way more clearn. it's pretty clean from what i can tell.
just the angles that aren't equal, which isn't a minus to cleanlyness of a shape to me by any means. why it works better as it is imo is based one the high sounds on 00:34:409 (2,3,4) - which with this shape form a unit, which is seperate from 00:34:272 (1,1) - due to the angles while still forming a coherent transition as a set of five notes
00:37:148 (9,1) - switch the new combo? this kinda bothered me reading it. also it will look better. sure
00:47:559 (1,2,3) - you might wanna do a pattern more flat since this currently conflicts with the pattern 00:47:148 (2,3,4) - so. https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/8676505 i'm not sure why you think it's conflicting tbh. what i like about it is how 00:47:285 (3,4,2) - form an isosceles triangle that's fits with the grid concepts of the map and the shallow but not linear angle to the following slider which both fall away if it were flat for the benefit of lining up 3 with the direction of 4. so i'm not sure, for the moment i'd rather keep it but if i realize why it would be conflicting with the previous notes i will reconcider
00:49:066 (1,2,3,4,5) - can i have a straight stream :v i assume because the tripples are all straight too, makes sense, will do
00:50:436 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,1) - I think more linear stuff here can work with how you've been patterning in the map pretty much better but not really sure, perhaps just my preference. https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/8676518 i certainly see the appeal of having it that way. for now i'll keep it though because the entire transition already works with non-linears as well and i like how the current patterns emphasises the different instruments in a very distinct way. also with your alternative i wouldn't know how to connect the following part yet and the slider on the new meassure doesn't get nearly as much of an impact as i'd like for how important it is
01:07:422 - I see you didn't make any circles here to make a difference between the vocals belong and not, but could take a circle at least for the drum, it still can differentiate from the concept where you used 3 circles to fill the vocals. https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/8676532 the intention was to only map snare and vocals, but i since adding that note doesn't really create inconsistencies i might as well add it
01:11:395 (2) - stack it on the slider end, this looks messy in game play lol. well the thing is if i stack them the other way around there will be an overlap with 01:11:806 (1) - i stack it for now and see if i'll get angry mails
01:13:176 (2,3) - is there any reason behind using a different rhythm from 01:13:861 (2,3) - yet spacing is much closer? I mean, the rhythm being different isn't a bad idea but this is a pain for reading ablity. perhaps try the circle 01:13:861 (2) - to stack it on the sliderend. the point is that one covers bass drums while the other is on snares so i do want a different effect. but it's true that the spacing is pretty large. tried something that involves the stack on the sliderend as suggested
01:14:272 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - they should be more like split by 3 from (1), that 01:14:272 (1) - has been obstruction for it. i'm not sure if i understood this correctly. but if you mean i should start the sets of three from 1 rather than 2 i'd disagree. it would take away from the emphasis on the snares for the sake of a less important bass drum which functions more as a build for the following snares. which is also why i think having one seperately like that works pretty well. i could make the idea clearer if i moved the third notes of each set closer to the second in a sort of overlap, but i think this version works fine in that regard imo as the contrast is just as present from the increased angles and larger spacing to the next note instead of coming from an (almost) complete stop
01:17:422 (1) - I prefer this to be isolated from the pattern, I think this makes reading harder in a bad way :/ moved it below
02:02:559 (1) - uh, not stacking this on the previous slider makes only this looks worse imo. threw it on the end of the long one because it happens to work
02:05:025 - THE DIFF SPIKE IS REAL. seriously, the spacing usage from this part isn't way too much inappropriate. the map itself had somehow concept that regarding to reading ability, but this suddenly turned into some kind of shit. I'm not even trying to be rude, the fact made the map x10k times worse. I won't mention anything about this because I'm not capable to manage it and strongly disliked it. managed to nerf the hardest patterns in the part.
more of a changelog than a response as it will hardly change your view though.
02:37:183 (3) - feels this is out of place because if you make the part "only singletap" thing it will be highlight the music more and actually cool. i can see that, removing it and readjusting connections. also removing the triples in the part after because i never liked them anyway, not sure if you meant for that too
03:18:724 (1) - removing this to ignore the sound seems more reasonable for playing ability though. it wasn't good in the regard of mixing regular sounds and flute into one burst anyway, removed all the flute parts in the section
03:26:600 (1,2,3,4,5) - this is literally only one good thing about spaced stream, it represent the music pretty well yet giving play ability fun.
04:09:751 (1) - you can reduce the volume for the ticks, don't make them inaudible though. turned down to 20% for now
04:16:326 - and yeah, this is also a lot better than the first place where spaced streams came out. this still matches with the spike of the music nicely, and using a really good type of patterning. therefore 04:23:313 (3,4,5,6) - this kind of pattern that looking doublets and completely a jump (not like "spaced") isn't fitting this with the rest of patterning here. imo it does. the more coherent streams are all withing th epart of the kiai that has that long vocal over it, giving everything a sense of coherency. after that breaks off up and the vocals start just repeating in short sharply muted reiterations, i break up the patterns too, giving the instrumentals that gain the main focus more presence. keeping it the same way as the first half of the segment would seem misrepresentative to me

---
the concept for first 2 minutes of the entire diff and the first 8s of the first kiai were both quite interesting, and therefore the spaced streams ruined everything. while I was modding the first 2 minutes of the map I actually had a will to bubble it if some of the patterns used a polish, but it has completely gone once the spaced streams part came across. well, might be interesting if it's for whatever not ranked, but if you ever try to get it ranked, I can say this isn't fitting to the ranked section, at very least for me. I'm quite sad because of the reason; good luck though.

a shame the later parts ruine it for you, can't be helped i suppose. i do want them to be different from the first two minutes as the song does change quite drastically in it's structure too. similar changes happen several times after all while the first might be the biggest. it is the theme of the song after all to come in different phases, so it's only appropriate to do so in mapping too for me while i still try to keep underlying concepts like the hexagridding, parallelism, reused positioning and control based flow with linear influences.

thank you for the mod, took my dear time concidering all the presented options as most were interesting alternatives indeed

Do NOT change the AR no matter how many mods tell you otherwise.
(you probably weren't planning to do that, but I wanted to clarify anyway)
also don't compromise to 8.8

amazing map, i hope someday it will become ranked

i wouldnt change the AR either because the lower AR emphazises the map better than a high one, because players, who struggle with a lot of hitobjects, which is, i would say the main player base, will struggle especially with the faster/more dense part, which supports the map. Being able to play the calm parts with some tweaks here and there, but loosing ultimately on the kiais and even the guitar part after the intro. Even for players who can somewhat read a high note density, it still supports the song in a way that it makes the faster parts harder in a natural, but today, because of "meta", mostly forgotten way. ( Why even higher AR with the reason its not meta or not modern? I think this map is the exact opposite of a modern jump pp anime tv size with FULL SCREEN JUMPS BLASTING AT YOU ) Also does it support the mappers style thinking of most patterns in coherence to the whole map, but focusing on almost every aspect that is minor, but still important, synergizing better with the amount of thoughts the mapper has to made ( see it as high density = lots of thoughts and sound aspects taking into account )

Just my 2 cents ~

maybe ive learned enough by now to make this a somewhat useful mod.

00:11:601 (4) - the 17th white slidertick has to move up to top right quite a bit to make it perfectly round ( you can see a bulb at around 75° mathematical degree ) also the gap is too big at around 120° (send it to you via discord)

00:44:546 (14) - wrong timed, because its a delayed sound. has to be on the blue tick after this

00:54:135 (5) - in this entire part, you use the slider as a way to emphasize the long vocals. This sounds like it has 2 syllables, so i wouldnt use a slider on it but a circle x slider if you wanna keep the focus on the drum at the sliderend aswell, just do 3 circles because ive seen you emphasize something different with a 1/4th slider. 01:20:436 (5), 01:26:874 (5,6) - here you did it ( for the shiwa sound ) While the spacing in time is different, you use 2 different concepts for this sound. Would change the first one

01:00:436 (2,3) - here its correct tho ^ because its 2 syllabels you use ( its different vocals but the same concept you should use )

01:10:573 (4) - nc here i think because its a strong sound. I know you emphasize the longer syllabels again with NC but it would fit in here with how the instruments comes into foreground for this one specific slider ( its also a slider! does that count for a reason? )

01:17:422 (1) - i dont know if you made this on purpose or it slipped through because you emphasized every NC with the singers voice, here you dont ( maybe its because its a new part? ) still irritating

01:20:436 (5) - same as 00:54:135 (5) -but here you did it ( for the shiwa sound ) While the spacing in time is different, you use 2 different

01:49:203 (2,3,4) - you emphasize this wrong. there are clearly piano sounds on these and you map em as they were simple drum sounds or lesser piano sounds. I would emphasize those 3 more with bigger jumps. same for 01:50:025 (2,3,4) -

01:55:915 (3,4) - why do you use a spacing here when you dont do it here 01:56:463 (6,7) - you have a piano sound followed by a drum sound ( and a piano sound which is emphasized correctly tho ). Once you give it a spacing and once not? Either give both a spacing or give the 2nd drum sound (01:56:600 (7) - ) a spacing and the first one not because its stronger in sound

02:02:559 (1,2) - why is this spacing bigger than this 02:02:765 (2,3) - ? I dont understand since you wanna emphasize the drums and the piano in this part yet 02:02:765 (2) - is the lowest sound in this pattern but has only the 2nd lowest spacing

02:06:258 (6) - you should make this a 1/8th slider or a repeat slider because theres a sound on the yellow tick after this

02:06:669 (3,4,1) - maybe you wanna make these 1/8th streams aswell? they have the clear piano build up to build up the next vowel the singer sings stronger, would emphasize the next slider better

02:43:450 (5) - there is a sound on the blue tick after this, did you not hear it or left it intentionally out? you could make it a build up for the triple at 02:46:532 (1,2,3) - because these sounds build up to the triple you mapped

02:44:888 (4) - ^ 02:45:299 (6) - ^

02:45:710 (8,1,2,3) - these all have 1/4th piano or drum sounds in between them

04:03:998 (1,2,3) - sorry but this looks ugly because the first semicircle is too small in radius compared to the 2nd one. make it a little bit bigger and its ok.

04:09:751 (1) - make this maybe more special? because the whole map builds up so far to this specific sound. It is the same syllabel and therefore lyric as the initial slider you made, this one 00:11:601 (4) - . Would really help emphasizing it. I would just copy paste and rotate the intro slider so people see theyre connected.

04:34:409 (1) - make this maybe a double? its the same style in singing as one of these 04:31:943 (1,2) - ( could also be for diversity? i dont know )

04:42:628 (1) - I still dont agree how you emphasize this entire part. In addition to your typical emphasizing strong guitar riffs ( the part after your preview point ), i would add the 1/4th gaps as NC aswell, so this 04:44:066 (5) - and 04:45:710 (5) - and 04:47:354 (5) - and 04:50:641 (5) - and 04:52:285 (5) - and 04:54:648 (3) - because of several reasons. ( mostly readable issues ) First its in the most hyped up part of the map, exactly between the 2 kiais and a slow part. Second its the way it is waaaaaaaaay to hard to read compared to the kiais. Also, beside the missreadable NC part, despite this part being somewhat exciting and hyped up due to its position in the song, it looks calm. Too little happening in the vision field so i would spice it up with some NC's and therefore more colour changes. Also, more NC's make it harder to cheese through this part but easier for people who actually know how to play this and therefore less punishable.

04:48:381 (1,2,3,4) - i dont understand why this is a straigh line. i would make it move upwards in a circular movement counter clockwise. ( just change position of 2 and 3, keep 1 and 4 since they are fine ) It would work better with 04:54:854 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - aswell because they use different sounds for 04:54:854 (1,2,3,4) - compared to 04:55:367 (5,6,7) - but you still map them the same. You have to change either of these, but since the 2nd pattern plays and looks nice, i would change the first one to make it my suggested change.

04:55:778 (1) - you might wanna change the spacing on this because the sound itself is calm, yes i agree, but the diversity going from the part before to this is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO big that it doesnt look and play fulfilling, a simple NC doesnt emphasize this enough. Maybe you could also make it a special hitsound? Like not only whistle but some custom sound that is especially strong. another reason found in this 05:49:407 (6) - , both explanation and sound. Look there for the whole reasoning.

05:23:724 (1) - i would change the spacing of this. For every other piano upbeat with a NC you used a bigger spacing compared to the rest of this part. Would change therefore.

05:24:546 (1) - ^

05:26:600 (4) - ^ but also missing a NC

05:31:942 (4) - if you agree to the changes with the NC in this part 04:42:628 (1) - you have to change this aswell

05:48:791 (2,3,4,5) - this doesnt emphasize this part enough with its spacing and movement. I hear glitchy sounds you used in previous parts aswell ( 04:41:189 (2,3,4,5,6,7) - like this ) the only difference is, there is no voice. I would make this a zigzag part aswell but with smaller emphasis.

05:49:407 (6) - here you could set a nice 1/16th repetetive slider ( make it half a beat long ). With correct spacing it would emphasize the sudden change in sound which is SOOOOOOOOOO big in here. where have i seen similar patterns in the map? ( 04:55:573 (7,1) - huehuehue ) What i wanna say, that these abrupt changes are made on purpose by the artist and therefore you should emphasize it. They sum up the differences of the map in sound and style and therefore, those are keysounds, you left out or didnt emphasize enough.

06:03:043 (4,1) - for these sounds, you emphasize it correct, the best way possible, but its not good enough by osu itself D:. Sadly you cannot set a slider and change its SV. What would be cool but unrankable would be a slider with high SV that is stacked a lot so it looks like no movement at all going faster and faster due to less stacking making it appear as the initial slider but in some weird fucked up way making the signal noise emphasize with an obnoxious Hitsounding thats getting louder and louder aswell, BUT NO, OSU RANKING DOES NOT ALLOW IT QQ even tho it would give this map a perfect ending. maybe you can ask someone if this is a possible and rankable change?


I hope i could help out a bit.

Chriz wrote:

i wouldnt change the AR either because the lower AR emphazises the map better than a high one, because players, who struggle with a lot of hitobjects, which is, i would say the main player base, will struggle especially with the faster/more dense part, which supports the map. Being able to play the calm parts with some tweaks here and there, but loosing ultimately on the kiais and even the guitar part after the intro. Even for players who can somewhat read a high note density, it still supports the song in a way that it makes the faster parts harder in a natural, but today, because of "meta", mostly forgotten way. ( Why even higher AR with the reason its not meta or not modern? I think this map is the exact opposite of a modern jump pp anime tv size with FULL SCREEN JUMPS BLASTING AT YOU ) Also does it support the mappers style thinking of most patterns in coherence to the whole map, but focusing on almost every aspect that is minor, but still important, synergizing better with the amount of thoughts the mapper has to made ( see it as high density = lots of thoughts and sound aspects taking into account ) yeah, swerro's post already reminded me of what kind of player this map is made for and this is a pretty good depiction of some details involved.

Just my 2 cents ~

maybe ive learned enough by now to make this a somewhat useful mod.

00:11:601 (4) - the 17th white slidertick has to move up to top right quite a bit to make it perfectly round ( you can see a bulb at around 75° mathematical degree ) also the gap is too big at around 120° (send it to you via discord) it's not too neat and or pretty in general. i'd like to redo it entirely with fewer ticks

00:44:546 (14) - wrong timed, because its a delayed sound. has to be on the blue tick after this mapping on composition. the first tripple would need to be slightly different too, just inaccurate sounds from the music - human error. i'm pretty sure it's intended to be as mapped. also mapping it later like that would mean making it unreasonably timed to play and it doesn't add much aside being off from the piano that way.

00:54:135 (5) - in this entire part, you use the slider as a way to emphasize the long vocals. This sounds like it has 2 syllables, so i wouldnt use a slider on it but a circle x slider if you wanna keep the focus on the drum at the sliderend aswell, just do 3 circles because ive seen you emphasize something different with a 1/4th slider. 01:20:436 (5), 01:26:874 (5,6) - here you did it ( for the shiwa sound ) While the spacing in time is different, you use 2 different concepts for this sound. Would change the first one tbh i'm not sure what you're on about after reading the point several times. i don't hear any second syllable, i don't know what you want me to emphasise more, what does anything have to do with 1/4 sliders, what's a shiwa sound, what spacing difference and which sound do you think i use which concept for

01:00:436 (2,3) - here its correct tho ^ because its 2 syllabels you use ( its different vocals but the same concept you should use )

01:10:573 (4) - nc here i think because its a strong sound. I know you emphasize the longer syllabels again with NC but it would fit in here with how the instruments comes into foreground for this one specific slider ( its also a slider! does that count for a reason? ) i definitely want the note after to have an nc, more so that this one. and i'm not a fan of the idea of having two nc right after each other. besides i see that slider as a part of the coherent sound pattern that the previous notes follow with the accentuation on the drums.

01:17:422 (1) - i dont know if you made this on purpose or it slipped through because you emphasized every NC with the singers voice, here you dont ( maybe its because its a new part? ) still irritating yeah, just wanted to seperate if from the previous pattern since it doesn't belong into one combo with it imo. so the only other option is including the upbeat into the coming section or using two concurrent nc, the latter of which i still don't like having

01:20:436 (5) - same as 00:54:135 (5) -but here you did it ( for the shiwa sound ) While the spacing in time is different, you use 2 different still don't know what's the thing with these

01:49:203 (2,3,4) - you emphasize this wrong. there are clearly piano sounds on these and you map em as they were simple drum sounds or lesser piano sounds. I would emphasize those 3 more with bigger jumps. same for 01:50:025 (2,3,4) - i don't think they are emphasised "wrong"ly.
the piano gets enough focus through the angles and the fact that they are all clickable. i don't see them as important enough as that they'd need special treatment in the spacing departement. in fact it would take away from the vocals, which i see as more important here as well as through most of the map because it would truncate contrasts. so to me, they are in fact "lesser piano sounds"

01:55:915 (3,4) - why do you use a spacing here when you dont do it here 01:56:463 (6,7) - you have a piano sound followed by a drum sound ( and a piano sound which is emphasized correctly tho ). Once you give it a spacing and once not? Either give both a spacing or give the 2nd drum sound (01:56:600 (7) - ) a spacing and the first one not because its stronger in sound one of the sets of three includes snares, the other rides(?). additionally one has three syllables on it which all receive movement, while the other only has two. there's plenty difference between those two sets of three that are apparent and important enough to call for differences in mapping

02:02:559 (1,2) - why is this spacing bigger than this 02:02:765 (2,3) - ? I dont understand since you wanna emphasize the drums and the piano in this part yet 02:02:765 (2) - is the lowest sound in this pattern but has only the 2nd lowest spacing vocals.

02:06:258 (6) - you should make this a 1/8th slider or a repeat slider because theres a sound on the yellow tick after this a really non-essencial ornament sound but i guess it doesn't hurt adding it

02:06:669 (3,4,1) - maybe you wanna make these 1/8th streams aswell? they have the clear piano build up to build up the next vowel the singer sings stronger, would emphasize the next slider better it's not really a distinct 1/8 in that synth, just a rising pitch in a constant buzzy sound which btw starts on 02:06:463 (1) - already. so if i mapped 1/8 there i'd have to start there which defies the point of adding them fordifferentiating the vocals. so since i want that piece of five notes coherent and fully clickable for the drums i don't really see a possibility to trade off for the vocal's upbeat aside of condensing the first two notes, i can try that. the synth pitch-up will have to make due with the gradual spacing increase

02:43:450 (5) - there is a sound on the blue tick after this, did you not hear it or left it intentionally out? you could make it a build up for the triple at 02:46:532 (1,2,3) - because these sounds build up to the triple you mapped there are in fact a lot of weakish tripples in this section, especially with the electric/guitar ones added up. as you know i had them mapped out before.. but couldn't find any way to pull them off properly. the ones you link specifically are of different nature each and have little to do with the final one, so i don't see how they'd serve as a build up. also it would be odd to start with the hihat tripples now after skipping all the hihats in the build up section before

02:44:888 (4) - ^ 02:45:299 (6) - ^

02:45:710 (8,1,2,3) - these all have 1/4th piano or drum sounds in between them

04:03:998 (1,2,3) - sorry but this looks ugly because the first semicircle is too small in radius compared to the 2nd one. make it a little bit bigger and its ok. i tried

04:09:751 (1) - make this maybe more special? because the whole map builds up so far to this specific sound. It is the same syllabel and therefore lyric as the initial slider you made, this one 00:11:601 (4) - . Would really help emphasizing it. I would just copy paste and rotate the intro slider so people see theyre connected. and if you listen one syllable before it you'll notice how it is infact not the same text passage. one is 前に while the other is ように which are essencially different as one indicates a location or relative time while the other describes a purpose of the before.. i diverge. neither does this build up.. if you can even call it that here untill the slider actually starts the of the same structure as the intro. also being the only 0.1 sv slider in the map makes it pretty special from what i can tell. also the song doesn't build up to the sound. if anything then to what lies immediately after it. so the contrast it creates with it's low sv does just that.

04:34:409 (1) - make this maybe a double? its the same style in singing as one of these 04:31:943 (1,2) - ( could also be for diversity? i dont know ) not for diversity, i just completely missed that one. tried something.. not sure if it works yet

04:42:628 (1) - I still dont agree how you emphasize this entire part. In addition to your typical emphasizing strong guitar riffs ( the part after your preview point ), i would add the 1/4th gaps as NC aswell, so this 04:44:066 (5) - and 04:45:710 (5) - and 04:47:354 (5) - and 04:50:641 (5) - and 04:52:285 (5) - and 04:54:648 (3) - because of several reasons. ( mostly readable issues ) First its in the most hyped up part of the map, exactly between the 2 kiais and a slow part. Second its the way it is waaaaaaaaay to hard to read compared to the kiais. Also, beside the missreadable NC part, despite this part being somewhat exciting and hyped up due to its position in the song, it looks calm. Too little happening in the vision field so i would spice it up with some NC's and therefore more colour changes. Also, more NC's make it harder to cheese through this part but easier for people who actually know how to play this and therefore less punishable. so those sound that you would use an nc on all belong ot the previous musical pattern with the bell thingy sounds,
so that makes me repulsive to the idea of ncing all those. additionally i already talked about single note nc. as for the arguments, i think the part is high energy but very static in nature. would not call it a "hype part", hence it is not a kiai, by which that has little to do with anything anyway. as for readability,
i explained what i think of the need for sightreadability on my response to halfslashed already. if your rading is mainly rhythm based as well it won't be much of an issue to read once you've understood the rhythm. players that have their reading focus on visuals would have a harder time and might need to memorize, but i don't see it as inherently wrong to do. the argument of too little happening on the "vision field", whatever that exactly describes, i just do't see at all. there's plenty going on from what i see. also the whole cheesing sentense i don't get.
btw i wouldn't compare it to the early phases of the song as it's essencially different in many ways as the foreground instruments are completely swapped and the melodies and impression do not resemble each other whatsoever, but i don't see why you even brought that up in the first place so it's whatever.

04:48:381 (1,2,3,4) - i dont understand why this is a straigh line. i would make it move upwards in a circular movement counter clockwise. ( just change position of 2 and 3, keep 1 and 4 since they are fine ) It would work better with 04:54:854 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - aswell because they use different sounds for 04:54:854 (1,2,3,4) - compared to 04:55:367 (5,6,7) - but you still map them the same. You have to change either of these, but since the 2nd pattern plays and looks nice, i would change the first one to make it my suggested change. not sure what you're going for with a circular instead of linear movement there or on what basis you want to campare which instruments of the two parts. but i noticed something that was out of order with the object choice, so maybe now the intentions are clearer to you as well

04:55:778 (1) - you might wanna change the spacing on this because the sound itself is calm, yes i agree, but the diversity going from the part before to this is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO big that it doesnt look and play fulfilling, a simple NC doesnt emphasize this enough. Maybe you could also make it a special hitsound? Like not only whistle but some custom sound that is especially strong. another reason found in this 05:49:407 (6) - , both explanation and sound. Look there for the whole reasoning. especially because the difference in intensity is that big i want that specific transition to have as little emphasis through movement as possible to capture the contrast. so stacking sounds like the best option to me. also a strong hitsound would destroy just that purpose. by which i certainly wouldn't mind having more custom hitsounds in general if i were at all skilled at finding and applying them, but that's another topic

05:23:724 (1) - i would change the spacing of this. For every other piano upbeat with a NC you used a bigger spacing compared to the rest of this part. Would change therefore. right, i remember not knowing what to do with them at the time. just moved them on top of the next note now

05:24:546 (1) - ^

05:26:600 (4) - ^ but also missing a NC

05:31:942 (4) - if you agree to the changes with the NC in this part 04:42:628 (1) - you have to change this aswell

05:48:791 (2,3,4,5) - this doesnt emphasize this part enough with its spacing and movement. I hear glitchy sounds you used in previous parts aswell ( 04:41:189 (2,3,4,5,6,7) - like this ) the only difference is, there is no voice. I would make this a zigzag part aswell but with smaller emphasis. they are not the same even if you ignore the present or absent vocals in several ways. what i'll mention for this specifically would be coherency/splitting of the sound patterns

05:49:407 (6) - here you could set a nice 1/16th repetetive slider ( make it half a beat long ). With correct spacing it would emphasize the sudden change in sound which is SOOOOOOOOOO big in here. where have i seen similar patterns in the map? ( 04:55:573 (7,1) - huehuehue ) What i wanna say, that these abrupt changes are made on purpose by the artist and therefore you should emphasize it. They sum up the differences of the map in sound and style and therefore, those are keysounds, you left out or didnt emphasize enough. first off, "nice 1/16th". those two words are pretty much mutually exclusive to me. and why on earth should i put that on that note, there is nothing implying any such buzz non-sense. there is buzz before it which i left out intentionally because it's more of a switch noise between phases of the song rather than something i'd want to play. it seperates the pacing and structure of parts so that anything after it is basically a new start. and with that the called for "emphasis", though i don't know if i'd want to call it that here, is there. mapping the radio buzz would probably just make it more hectic a transition than it has to be due to various factors.

06:03:043 (4,1) - for these sounds, you emphasize it correct, the best way possible, but its not good enough by osu itself D:. Sadly you cannot set a slider and change its SV. What would be cool but unrankable would be a slider with high SV that is stacked a lot so it looks like no movement at all going faster and faster due to less stacking making it appear as the initial slider but in some weird fucked up way making the signal noise emphasize with an obnoxious Hitsounding thats getting louder and louder aswell, BUT NO, OSU RANKING DOES NOT ALLOW IT QQ even tho it would give this map a perfect ending. maybe you can ask someone if this is a possible and rankable change? an accellerating slider does sound pretty cool in concept. though i don't know how well it would actually work. it's one of few places a spinner actually fits though imo, so i'm fine with a slider of that nature not even being rankable for this occasion.


I hope i could help out a bit.

have my thanks

I love this map, please rank it!

the only way to pass this map is to stream throughout the song and follow the circles hopefully you can aim f

This modding thread has been migrated to the new "modding discussions" system. Please make sure to re-post any existing (and unresolved) efforts to the new system as required.