From my modding queue
[Dispersion of Lights]
For this map, I'm going to take an unusual route and analyze types of issues on their own. I usually wouldn't do this, but this map is clearly divided in sections that have distinct types of flaws.
Let's get started.
At last, I am done. This took quite a lot of effort so if you're just going to ignore you I'll actually chase you down irl.
Thank you for using my queue
[Dispersion of Lights]
For this map, I'm going to take an unusual route and analyze types of issues on their own. I usually wouldn't do this, but this map is clearly divided in sections that have distinct types of flaws.
Let's get started.
Rhythm Issues
[00:06:837 - 01:07:008]
Many of the sliders here are off rhythm-wise. The song barely has any delay on those sounds, but they are placed a whole 1/2 late. I've tried it myself and normalizing the rhythm so all sliders end up on a red tick makes the map a lot more intuitive to play, and it doesn't sound half bad.
Namely, these sliders are 00:13:865 (2) - 00:15:065 (1) - 00:16:608 (2) - 00:22:094 (2) - 00:34:437 (1) - 00:35:637 (2) - 00:38:551 (2)
Please be careful with 00:34:437 (1) - it's actually too long and should end on 00:35:465 - while 00:35:980 (2) - should start on 00:35:637 - and be long enough to end on 00:36:837 . The same applies for almost all instances of this error.
[01:07:694 - 01:30:126]
Although loosely, the vocals are followed, but the rhythm doesn't have a proper structure.
Take 01:07:694 (1,2,1,2) - Here there's a click and then a release on every... syllable I guess? Why are 01:07:694 and 01:08:380 special, and get a click?
The answer is that they're not and this rhythm structure is wrong.
Emphasis should be an all syllables, but it's fair to keep a slider for a prolonged sound, or to fill in the gap. Therefore, this is the correct rhythm structure for this pattern. But I bet you're going to say something like "this part is calmer so, so"- don't.
If you don't want to give this section a lot of intensity (which you wouldn't with that pattern anyways, because the song is so slow), you can use a passive version of this rhythm, like this. Point is, as it stands, that rhythm is wrong.
On to 01:09:751 (1,2,3)
3 doesn't even land on a notable sound. 1 should be shorter and 2 should take 1's tail's place. 3 should be longer. here
You're giving slidertails too much importance and ruining the tactile feedback from the patterns because of it.
01:13:180 (2,3,4,1,2,3) - exact same.
01:22:464 (4) - should go all the way to the red tick before 01:23:150 (1). "with" ends on the red tick.
[01:34:437 - 02:18:322]
There aren't any notable rhythm flaws in this section. Well structured.
[02:21:065 - 03:24:151]
There aren't any notable rhythm flaws in this section. It's hard to mess up a 1-2 drum-snare structure, I guess.
[03:26:894 - 04:10:779]
03:29:294 (7) - No matter how many times I listen to this and play it out, this slider should be 2 circles, period.
03:51:922 (2) - Either give 03:52:265 - a clickacle object or be consistent with this and make 03:52:437 (3,4) - 03:52:951 (1,2,3) - 03:53:294 (3,4,5) - groups of 3. There is too much variation in composition for a section that's literally identical all the way.
03:54:322 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5) - Same applies.
[04:10:437 - 04:32:722]
04:29:979 (1,2,1,1,1,1,1) - Simplifying rhythms is a thing, but this is bad.
04:30:322 (1) - This should not be the start of the slider. Replace with a circle.
04:30:494 - This should be the start of the first slider. You put the most important drum on a reverse arrow. Give it a click.
04:31:694 - 04:32:208 - should have clicks.
this is what this rhythm should look like
[04:32:722 - 05:16:694]
There aren't any notable rhythm issues in this section; although there are inconsistencies, it is nothing worth mentioning.
[05:41:637 - 06:03:237]
this one's ok too.
Many of the sliders here are off rhythm-wise. The song barely has any delay on those sounds, but they are placed a whole 1/2 late. I've tried it myself and normalizing the rhythm so all sliders end up on a red tick makes the map a lot more intuitive to play, and it doesn't sound half bad.
Namely, these sliders are 00:13:865 (2) - 00:15:065 (1) - 00:16:608 (2) - 00:22:094 (2) - 00:34:437 (1) - 00:35:637 (2) - 00:38:551 (2)
Please be careful with 00:34:437 (1) - it's actually too long and should end on 00:35:465 - while 00:35:980 (2) - should start on 00:35:637 - and be long enough to end on 00:36:837 . The same applies for almost all instances of this error.
[01:07:694 - 01:30:126]
Although loosely, the vocals are followed, but the rhythm doesn't have a proper structure.
Take 01:07:694 (1,2,1,2) - Here there's a click and then a release on every... syllable I guess? Why are 01:07:694 and 01:08:380 special, and get a click?
The answer is that they're not and this rhythm structure is wrong.
Emphasis should be an all syllables, but it's fair to keep a slider for a prolonged sound, or to fill in the gap. Therefore, this is the correct rhythm structure for this pattern. But I bet you're going to say something like "this part is calmer so, so"- don't.
If you don't want to give this section a lot of intensity (which you wouldn't with that pattern anyways, because the song is so slow), you can use a passive version of this rhythm, like this. Point is, as it stands, that rhythm is wrong.
On to 01:09:751 (1,2,3)
3 doesn't even land on a notable sound. 1 should be shorter and 2 should take 1's tail's place. 3 should be longer. here
You're giving slidertails too much importance and ruining the tactile feedback from the patterns because of it.
01:13:180 (2,3,4,1,2,3) - exact same.
01:22:464 (4) - should go all the way to the red tick before 01:23:150 (1). "with" ends on the red tick.
[01:34:437 - 02:18:322]
There aren't any notable rhythm flaws in this section. Well structured.
[02:21:065 - 03:24:151]
There aren't any notable rhythm flaws in this section. It's hard to mess up a 1-2 drum-snare structure, I guess.
[03:26:894 - 04:10:779]
03:29:294 (7) - No matter how many times I listen to this and play it out, this slider should be 2 circles, period.
03:51:922 (2) - Either give 03:52:265 - a clickacle object or be consistent with this and make 03:52:437 (3,4) - 03:52:951 (1,2,3) - 03:53:294 (3,4,5) - groups of 3. There is too much variation in composition for a section that's literally identical all the way.
03:54:322 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,5) - Same applies.
[04:10:437 - 04:32:722]
04:29:979 (1,2,1,1,1,1,1) - Simplifying rhythms is a thing, but this is bad.
04:30:322 (1) - This should not be the start of the slider. Replace with a circle.
04:30:494 - This should be the start of the first slider. You put the most important drum on a reverse arrow. Give it a click.
04:31:694 - 04:32:208 - should have clicks.
this is what this rhythm should look like
[04:32:722 - 05:16:694]
There aren't any notable rhythm issues in this section; although there are inconsistencies, it is nothing worth mentioning.
[05:41:637 - 06:03:237]
this one's ok too.
Object placement issues
Yup, we're doing this again.
[00:06:837 - 01:07:008]
Well, there isn't any spacing and the sliders don't make sudden 180* turns, so I suppose this section is alright
[01:07:694 - 01:30:126]
01:09:751 (1,2,3) - Is there a reason to break implied cursor movement from 1's slider body? No? thought so. Make them play into each other, perhaps it would be easier for you if you changed 1's slider shape.
01:15:233 (1,3) - either ovelap slidertail and head, or blanket 3's sliderbody to 1's slidertail. This overlap just looks bad.
01:18:693 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1) - What's with this? The pattern itself is meh, but why is 01:20:750 (1) - further away as if it were a pattern on its own? You should either normalize the pattern by placing the last 1 as you have all other objects in this pattern, or change the pattern entirely to maybe look good.
[01:34:437 - 02:18:322]
01:35:465 (4,5) - Again, no reason to break circular flow. And even if you want to, this overlap looks bad. Use this blanket instead
01:39:923 (1,2,3,4,5) - If you're going to revert circular flow for every instance of this pattern, then why do these play into each other? Be consistent with flow choices.
01:42:665 (1,2,3) - 2 is a lot further away from 1 than 3 even though 1 and 3 are the same sound. Normalize spacing.
01:43:865 (5,5,6) - Another half-overlap. Either use an hexagrid or overlap them properly
01:46:608 (5,3) - Again?
Okay, I think you have a misconception about overlaps and object placement. You're NOT making it easier for players to see these. You're making visual clutter. It is something a map does not need and should avoid. This happens sooo many more times throughout the whole map. I'll point some out for you, but the solution is always the same; either use an hexagrid structure or perfectly overlap them. Half-assed overlaps make a map look bad. You should be able to tell where they are since you probably placed them that way on purpose.
01:51:922 (4,6,4) - either overlap all of them or space them evenly. This is clutter.
01:57:065 (3,4,5,6,7,8) - 6-7-8 plays awfully after 3-4-5. You should follow circular flow and avoid 180* turns in flow (without a reason, that is)
02:00:322 (5,2,4,1) - Clutter
02:03:579 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - This sort of thing only looks decent when the spacing is minimal
02:06:151 (6,1,2,3,4,5,6) - Clutter
02:15:579 (1,2) - Make this barely aesthetic bu placing 2 on an hexagrid, like this
02:16:608 (5,6,7,1,2,3,4,5) - Clutter. This sort of visual progressions should be done with minimal spacing as I've shown you. If you space them too further apart it will just look unpolished and bad.
[02:21:065 - 03:24:151]
02:22:779 (1,2) - Inconsistent spacing with 02:23:122 (3,4) - 02:23:465 (5,6) - , which are inconsistent with 02:23:808 (1) . What's the point of a reverse spacing progression if you're just going to put a CS jump right after? It just throws players off. There's no reason to have the map be unintuitive. Having less spacing for each 1-2 is fine but here it's too extreme.
02:25:522 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - I get the pattern, but at least make it look good
02:27:751 (3,2) - Clutter
02:28:437 (2,3) - Missed overlap
02:29:294 (1,2) - These should play into each other. Either rearrange or ctrlG 2
02:30:322 (4) - Uncomfortable flow. You should ctrlG 5, flip it and blanket
02:32:037 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - Again, use minimal spacing for the best effect
02:33:408 (1) - This is much better off as a blanket that it is as a part of the progression
02:34:437 (4) - Missed overlap/blanket with 02:33:237 (4)
02:34:779 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - This actually looks ok but apply the same changes just to be consistent
02:58:094 (5) - This would be a lot better if it was just a smaller version of the other 2 sliders rather than a cut version. here
[All other sections]
Object placement issues are pretty much the same across the map. Unjustified changed in circular flow - visual clutter - inconsistent spacing
I believe you got the gist of what you should be doing.
[00:06:837 - 01:07:008]
Well, there isn't any spacing and the sliders don't make sudden 180* turns, so I suppose this section is alright
[01:07:694 - 01:30:126]
01:09:751 (1,2,3) - Is there a reason to break implied cursor movement from 1's slider body? No? thought so. Make them play into each other, perhaps it would be easier for you if you changed 1's slider shape.
01:15:233 (1,3) - either ovelap slidertail and head, or blanket 3's sliderbody to 1's slidertail. This overlap just looks bad.
01:18:693 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1) - What's with this? The pattern itself is meh, but why is 01:20:750 (1) - further away as if it were a pattern on its own? You should either normalize the pattern by placing the last 1 as you have all other objects in this pattern, or change the pattern entirely to maybe look good.
[01:34:437 - 02:18:322]
01:35:465 (4,5) - Again, no reason to break circular flow. And even if you want to, this overlap looks bad. Use this blanket instead
01:39:923 (1,2,3,4,5) - If you're going to revert circular flow for every instance of this pattern, then why do these play into each other? Be consistent with flow choices.
01:42:665 (1,2,3) - 2 is a lot further away from 1 than 3 even though 1 and 3 are the same sound. Normalize spacing.
01:43:865 (5,5,6) - Another half-overlap. Either use an hexagrid or overlap them properly
01:46:608 (5,3) - Again?
Okay, I think you have a misconception about overlaps and object placement. You're NOT making it easier for players to see these. You're making visual clutter. It is something a map does not need and should avoid. This happens sooo many more times throughout the whole map. I'll point some out for you, but the solution is always the same; either use an hexagrid structure or perfectly overlap them. Half-assed overlaps make a map look bad. You should be able to tell where they are since you probably placed them that way on purpose.
01:51:922 (4,6,4) - either overlap all of them or space them evenly. This is clutter.
01:57:065 (3,4,5,6,7,8) - 6-7-8 plays awfully after 3-4-5. You should follow circular flow and avoid 180* turns in flow (without a reason, that is)
02:00:322 (5,2,4,1) - Clutter
02:03:579 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - This sort of thing only looks decent when the spacing is minimal
02:06:151 (6,1,2,3,4,5,6) - Clutter
02:15:579 (1,2) - Make this barely aesthetic bu placing 2 on an hexagrid, like this
02:16:608 (5,6,7,1,2,3,4,5) - Clutter. This sort of visual progressions should be done with minimal spacing as I've shown you. If you space them too further apart it will just look unpolished and bad.
[02:21:065 - 03:24:151]
02:22:779 (1,2) - Inconsistent spacing with 02:23:122 (3,4) - 02:23:465 (5,6) - , which are inconsistent with 02:23:808 (1) . What's the point of a reverse spacing progression if you're just going to put a CS jump right after? It just throws players off. There's no reason to have the map be unintuitive. Having less spacing for each 1-2 is fine but here it's too extreme.
02:25:522 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - I get the pattern, but at least make it look good
02:27:751 (3,2) - Clutter
02:28:437 (2,3) - Missed overlap
02:29:294 (1,2) - These should play into each other. Either rearrange or ctrlG 2
02:30:322 (4) - Uncomfortable flow. You should ctrlG 5, flip it and blanket
02:32:037 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - Again, use minimal spacing for the best effect
02:33:408 (1) - This is much better off as a blanket that it is as a part of the progression
02:34:437 (4) - Missed overlap/blanket with 02:33:237 (4)
02:34:779 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - This actually looks ok but apply the same changes just to be consistent
02:58:094 (5) - This would be a lot better if it was just a smaller version of the other 2 sliders rather than a cut version. here
[All other sections]
Object placement issues are pretty much the same across the map. Unjustified changed in circular flow - visual clutter - inconsistent spacing
I believe you got the gist of what you should be doing.
At last, I am done. This took quite a lot of effort so if you're just going to ignore you I'll actually chase you down irl.
Thank you for using my queue