Osuology wrote:

Ok, well first of all I do want to apologize. I was very tired and went too hastily. That doesn't mean I've changed my opinion that there are some things that need to be changed, but it doesn't deserve being rude and also being mad. Sorry. Please forgive me.

I want to see these things clarified:
00:16:382 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - Stream is spaced like this, but 00:19:151 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - this is more spaced. "Yes, I want an increase in spacing." It's part of the whole increased spacing and intensity concept. I did a more detailed response and explanation on p/5401779. The spacing increases because I want the map to get progressively harder. The first stream section is noticeably smaller because I first want players to be accustomed to the rhythm. You don't expect death streams so early on, especially after a jump section, so I felt a lower spacing transitioning to a slightly higher spacing would create a better transition. It's all part of establishing a crescendo effect.

Why do you want an increase in spacing?

00:22:536 (1,2,3,4,1) - You don't need to change spacing just to lead into the next section. Just leave the spacing how it was. "No... the spacing is necessary for the diminuendo and transition to the verse section." Uh, this is necessary. Don't you hear the drums and the lack of guitar there? It's a transitioning point between the intense stream section into the verse section. The transition keeps the rhythm consistent while lowering spacing to signal a departure from the original death stream rhythm, which makes sense here.

As I said for the next example of this, it does sacrifice some of the consistency and structure of the map because it's not consistent for the same rhythms, and thus it also sacrifices structure because the player, unconsciously, would naturally expect something else. Of course, this also carries on into the other place this happens. Consistency doesn't necessarily entail structure. Here, if I kept a consistent spacing, I would harm the structure of the map because the map is structured around building intensity and winding up. As well, (in the point above) it wouldn't create a transitioning structure between the 1/4 death streams into the verse section.
If you want some buildup, make the whole section build up, not like one second of buildup. A whole section being a build up... thats not a build up... Do you know what a build up entails? It's precisely because one section is harder than the other that there is a build up. If the whole section is the same consistency there is no build up...

As for rhythm choices, I decided I wouldn't talk about them, since I could be pointed out to be quite hypocritical, so let's drop those.

As for 00:52:382 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) -, I honestly think the map could be funner if you changed this up a little bit. If you do have reasons for mapping it this way, then please state that reason. It's fun! The rhythm is completely the same in terms of the guitar's strumming, so there is no rhythmic variance on your left hand. I chose these triangle patterns to create jumps every 3 notes. Why? Because ordering like this creates a rhythmic jump on your right hand instead. I want to convey an interesting rhythm here through right-hand motion rather than left-hand tapping. The song is in 3/4 time signature too, so this arrangement makes a lot more sense musically.

00:55:151 (1,2,3) - You were increasing distance between a 1/2 jump before, and you increase it by the same amount but now its 1/1. "Yes."
Your answer is simply yes, I would appreciate a more in-depth answer than just yes. I'm really not sure what to say here. This is just a mapping choice lol. It follows the song's rhythm and gives a structured placement. What confuses you about it? That its 1/1 instead of 1/2? Because its clearly readable. At AR 10 its really easy to differentiate between 1/2 jumps and 1/1 jumps. You can see this as an anti-jump because the transition from 2>1 is a transition from 1/2 rhythm to 1/1 rhythm, but don't you think this fits considering the tempo shift that comes after it? The anti-jump slows down the player in preparation for the next section.

I'm dropping everything else I think, so please just clarify these things with in-depth reasoning please. I'm just trying to make this a higher quality map if I can. I don't hate the map, or you. As a matter of fact, this map is really great otherwise. No hard feelings?

Osuology wrote:

Ok, thank you.

Just two more things left to say. What I meant by building up to a section by the entire previous section, is to slowly make that section become more spaced or whatever until it's the same as the next section, and then they would meet. In terms of jumps, thats already true. For streams, I prefer using sections rather than individual pattern spacings. Increased spacing on stream is more difficult to catch so I'd rather have sections where the spacing increases, rather than individual circles. Think of the map holistically, instead of every individual circle because the intensity build up technique relies on looking across sections of music to fully appreciate.

And at 00:55:151 (1,2,3) - I did misread this the first time I played it. But seeing it as an anti-jump, I can see why it would be ok. I guess that settles it then.

Spaghetti wrote:

Mp3 fixed by pishifat