1. Advanced (2.63 stars, 480 notes)
2. Hard (3.32 stars, 552 notes)
3. Kyuumi's Easy (1.62 stars, 213 notes)
4. Lasse's Insane (4.29 stars, 746 notes)
5. litoluna's Insane (5.03 stars, 881 notes)
6. Umi's Normal (2.05 stars, 392 notes)

log

: -Mo-
: -Mo-
: pishifat
: -Mo-
: pishifat
: Okorin
: -Mo-
: pishifat

Why is this mapset the same as Umi's mapset ?

Here's the message he sent me (french)

Translation : "Hi, so I'm really sorry I thought I had the time for it but I was wrong... Too much traveling and other stuff so do what you want with the set ! litoluna did not replied to my message but if he told you he was okay for you (about taking his mapset) then I think it's still on. Good luck my time on Osu is definitely over, if you can rank this map it will be the last mark I leave haha"

1. 01:14:327 (6) - ctrl g
2. 01:30:068 (6,1) - c'est pas bo c'est trop proche
3. 02:06:550 (2,3) - j'ferai un rythme comme ça plutot
4. 02:49:513 (6) - c pa tré bi1 blanquette

1. 00:11:917 (4,5) - je ferai en sorte que la fin finisse sur 2 circle ça serait coule
2. 00:18:957 (8,2) - fix staque
3. 00:35:439 (5) - dommage que tu fasse rien de ça :/ en plus il est trop proche de 3
4. 01:15:624 (9) - alo le nc enleve celui juste apres
5. 02:02:290 (9) - tu pourrais nc
6. 02:22:290 (1,2,3) - c'est compltement off les triples start sur les red tick lEAuL

• Advanced

1. 00:12:287 (7,1) - stack le slider-1 sur le slider tail du 7 ?
2. 00:24:327 (5,6) - stack?
3. 00:18:957 (7,2) - symétrique?
4. 00:48:957 (1,2) - remplace les par un slider renverse comme tu as fais ici 00:51:920 (1)
5. 01:03:772 (8,1) - ils ne sont pas stack
6. 01:20:624 (5) - whistle comme tu as fais 01:23:587 (5)
7. 02:13:031 (4) - ctrl+H pour le flow?
8. 02:35:624 (1) - nc n'est pas nécéssaire ici car elles suivent le slider avec la musique
9. 02:40:994 (1) - remove le nc pour être consistent avec les refrains précédents
10. 03:01:364 (6,7) - ces notes cassent le flow, essaye un truc du genre c'est bcp mieux j'pense https://puu.sh/wUQu8/506b24d097.jpg
11. 03:30:994 (6,7) - on ne voit pas trop ces notes à cause du cercle-4. Baissent-les un peu :/

• Hard

1. 00:42:476 - tu mappes pas la guitare ici? pourtant elle est forte :/
2. 01:15:068 (8,2) - pas très bien stack
3. 02:17:105 (8) - nc pour emphasis la guitare

Owens wrote:

short mod owo
[Hard]

00:02:657 (5) - Blanket
00:09:694 (1,2) - ^
00:12:472 (5) - Why would you stack this strong beat ?
00:21:920 (8) - ^
00:23:401 (3) - x:320 y:96 00:22:290 (1,2,3) - triangle stuff
00:28:957 (3) - maybe blanket this ?
02:47:476 (1) - ^ fix
02:51:735 (4) - ^
02:57:105 (3) - ^

Linada wrote:

ok

[advanced]

1. 01:14:327 (6) - ctrl g
2. 01:30:068 (6,1) - c'est pas bo c'est trop proche
3. 02:06:550 (2,3) - j'ferai un rythme comme ça plutot
4. 02:49:513 (6) - c pa tré bi1 blanquette

tou é fixé


[hard]

1. 00:11:917 (4,5) - je ferai en sorte que la fin finisse sur 2 circle ça serait coule j'ai unstack le 5 pour bien l'emphasize
2. 00:18:957 (8,2) - fix staque
3. 00:35:439 (5) - dommage que tu fasse rien de ça :/ en plus il est trop proche de 3
4. 01:15:624 (9) - alo le nc enleve celui juste apres
5. 02:02:290 (9) - tu pourrais nc
6. 02:22:290 (1,2,3) - c'est compltement off les triples start sur les red tick lEAuL C'est simplifié xd

ok

ShogunMoon wrote:

cc twa

• Advanced

1. 00:12:287 (7,1) - stack le slider-1 sur le slider tail du 7 ? no le son est différent, j'ai voulu marquer le changement en overlappant xd
2. 00:24:327 (5,6) - stack?
3. 00:18:957 (7,2) - symétrique?
4. 00:48:957 (1,2) - remplace les par un slider renverse comme tu as fais ici 00:51:920 (1) J'diversifie un peu xdd
5. 01:03:772 (8,1) - ils ne sont pas stack si D:
6. 01:20:624 (5) - whistle comme tu as fais 01:23:587 (5)
7. 02:13:031 (4) - ctrl+H pour le flow? changé par autre chose
8. 02:35:624 (1) - nc n'est pas nécéssaire ici car elles suivent le slider avec la musique le son est différent de celui du slider
9. 02:40:994 (1) - remove le nc pour être consistent avec les refrains précédents je l'ai fait ici 01:05:068 (1,2,3,4) -
10. 03:01:364 (6,7) - ces notes cassent le flow, essaye un truc du genre c'est bcp mieux j'pense https://puu.sh/wUQu8/506b24d097.jpg le son du 6 est vraiment fort, je pense que flowbreak ici passe bien
11. 03:30:994 (6,7) - on ne voit pas trop ces notes à cause du cercle-4. Baissent-les un peu :/ bah ils sont stack xdd

• Hard

1. 00:42:476 - tu mappes pas la guitare ici? pourtant elle est forte :/ no j'mappe l'autre son xd
2. 01:15:068 (8,2) - pas très bien stack
3. 02:17:105 (8) - nc pour emphasis la guitare

gl!~

• 
  Advanced

1. 00:34:698 (2,3,4,5,6) - I think it's a bit boring
   00:35:439 (4) - As the sound becomes bigger from here, how about changing the slider away from the distance?
2. 00:51:179 (7) - I think that NC can be used according to lyrics
   00:54:142 (6) - 00:57:105 (6) - 01:00:068 (6) - ^
3. 01:09:698 - Add finish
4. 01:30:439 (7) - Add NC
5. 02:37:846 (4,5,6,7,8,9,10) - How about unification in stack?
   02:38:216 (5,6) - 02:38:772 (7,8) - 02:39:327 (9,10) - to stack
6. 02:39:883 (1) - I think that this is the slider return
7. 03:40:068 (6) - Add NC
   just like hard

• 
  Hard

1. 00:33:401 (7,1) - I think the distance is a bit far away
2. 00:35:439 (5) - Same as advanced
3. 00:44:513 (5) - Ctrl+G is better
4. 01:25:809 (5,7) - Why stack only here?
   I guess stack is strange here in the same combo
5. 02:37:846 (4,5) - Why is there less pickup sound than Advanced?

Pachiru wrote:

mod:

2017 mapping.

hope it will help

1. 00:08:583 (2,3,4,1) - Looks really awkward. Just make one slider and rotate it 90 degrees in a square orientation. Should help aesthetic wise.
2. 00:41:457 - Wouldnt there be a note here, since theres one 00:38:494 (6) - here? For the snare, since there was one 00:38:494 (6) - here.
3. 00:45:624 (1) - Really don't think you should end on a big white tick, since a vocal is also there including the instrument.
4. 01:13:957 (1,2) - I see no real reason to not make it a slider, nothing much changes other than a change of measure.
5. 02:07:846 - missed snare.
6. 02:08:587 (3) - again, I strongly suggest you don't end a slider on a big white tick in this case. It ruins the instrument's momentum from the beginning of the section.
7. 02:10:253 (1,2) - Guitar doesn't change much, so I don't know why the pattern should. Make it a slider with the rest?
8. 02:16:920 (3) - The slider ends on the guitar's note point, which makes it sound very awkward when you play it. I suggest you make 02:17:105 - where the slider starts or at least make it distinct so the guitar is properly emphasized here.
9. 02:42:290 (5) - why the extra snare here?
10. 03:22:661 (8) - Again, a slider ends on another vocal and instrument point. Avoid these.

1. 00:10:991 (1) - Curve to blanket 00:09:694 (1) - ?
2. 00:19:235 (8) - you should stack it over 00:19:327 (1) - , would be a bit cleaner
3. 00:23:401 (1) - I really don't think you should end on the big white tick here. Just make it a 3/4 slider and add a note 00:23:772 - . Would be a bit smoother.
4. 00:42:198 - Dunno about this, I understand the pause here, but you're still missing the taps here. I suggest a double or triple, really up to you if you consider this.
5. 00:58:216 (3) - Missed snare
6. 01:03:772 - Please add a note here, the instruments played here. If it were just the vocals, that'd be fine. But in this case, a note is necessary.
7. 01:03:772 (1) - I feel like spinner should end 01:04:883 - here. 01:05:068 - Has too big of an impact to just end a spinner on.
8. 01:09:698 (1,2) - Should be a slider if we're going to follow the pattern you've been following.
9. 01:20:439 (3,4,5) - Slider starts too early on the vocal part, which made it sound weird. I suggest you rearrange the pattern to make it follow the vocal better.
10. 01:21:179 (7) - Should this slider start on 01:20:994 - because of the vocals?
11. 01:35:253 (3,4,5) - A similar situation as above.
12. 02:00:994 (4,5,6) - The transition to instruments here start too early. I suggest you make 02:00:994 (4) - a slider, removing 02:01:179 (5) - . This should smooth out the transition from vocal to instruments in the build up. I really hope you consider this.
13. 02:03:309 - Guitar here, Don't know if you intentionally missed it, but I suggest you try your best to include this one.
14. 02:08:587 (7) - Make it a 3/4 slider? Just to get that guitar strum.
15. 02:09:883 (4,5) - Why not make it a slider? Nothing changes, there aren't two guitar notes here.
16. 02:13:957 (5,6,7,8,9) - Sits in an awkward position in terms of pattern and focus wise, since you mapped 02:11:920 (1,2,3,4) - 's guitar, which is transitioning onto the next section, but completely ignored it 02:13:401 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - here. You didn't map the drums 02:11:920 (1,2,3,4) - here, so why start now?
17. 02:17:105 (4,5) - I think there should be a slider here following the guitar, or at least 02:17:476 (6) - here.
18. 02:44:513 (1,2,3,4) - You should start off with sliders like you did earlier, would make more sense.
19. 02:57:476 (6,7) - I think these should be a slider instead.
20. 03:14:698 - This part feels severely under mapped since you missed a ton of instruments you were mapping along with earlier. I don't think you should do this, since the transition should start 03:15:624 - .
21. 03:31:550 - missed snare.
22. 03:36:364 (1,2,3,4,5) - Weird transition, I suggest you keep going with what you had before, but this one is up to you.
23. 03:37:661 - Drums here.
24. 03:40:068 (4) - NC?

1. 00:06:176 (7) - Why not just stack this under 00:05:991 (6) - ? It'd fit with 00:02:657 (5) - . (kind of)
2. 00:35:439 (5) - NC here, also, You should try and make this more distinct in terms of field arrangement. Like, distance it a bit more.
3. 00:38:587 (5,6) - Stands out because theres no note between it (00:39:142 - ) like 00:41:550 (5,6,7) - , etc.
4. 01:05:994 (3,4,5,6) - Might be a bit difficult to read since it's overlapped by 01:05:068 (1) - .
5. 01:10:624 (4) - Woah, broke pattern consistency here. This just sounded weird since you missed 01:10:809 - .
6. 01:15:809 - Following 01:12:661 - 's pattern, shouldn't 01:15:624 (1,2) - be a slider? That way you can add a note 01:15:994 - here and let 01:16:179 (3) - be a 1/1 slider. Keeping consistency in terms of pattern is important.
7. 01:17:476 - Add a note here since the note density is dense anyways.
8. 01:23:587 (7) - Why should this be a 1/1 slider when 01:20:624 (6,7) - is this? Makes no sense.
9. 01:25:809 (5,6,7) - Awkward pattern, tad weird to play tbh,
10. 01:39:327 - I think you should add a spinner, doesn't hurt to add it here, since theres nothing after it that makes it difficult.
11. 02:35:068 (1) - Avoid landing on big white tick here, just makes playing 02:35:809 (2) - more awkward.
12. 02:41:550 (2) - NC here.
13. 03:09:698 (4) - Feels underwhelming now because you mapped something similar (03:06:735 - ), so it also feels inconsistent.
14. 03:12:476 (5,6) - Same case, why should it be 2 notes? Nothing much changes.
15. 03:31:179 (7,8) - I think these would fit better as sliders, considering you've done it in the intro too (00:15:624 (7) - ) in which case they're pretty similar.

1. 00:21:364 (5,6) - I think you should stick to what you did on 00:15:439 (6,7,8) - , but with 00:21:920 - being a single circle note.
2. 00:35:439 (4) - Make this a bit more distinct, like adding an NC or distancing it a bit more.
3. 00:38:587 (5,6) - Quite questionable since you didnt add a note in between, but you did 00:44:513 (1,2,3) - here and 00:39:327 (6,7,1) - here.
4. 01:28:772 (4,7) - Not sure about the reading here, but I think it should be ok.
5. 02:07:105 - Missed snare.
6. 02:07:846 - Missed another snare here.
7. 02:11:550 - Snare should be here.
8. 02:42:290 - Unnecessary snare here?

1. 00:19:327 (1,2) - why the change of pattern? It just threw off 00:19:883 (2,3) - and made it sound really weird, especially when you missed 00:20:624 - .
2. 00:40:809 (2,3) - Yes, it might be redundant, but I still think this should be a repeat, since it's really the only pattern in that part.
3. 00:43:772 (2) - Shouldn't this be a repeat since you did a repeat for 00:37:846 (2) - ?
4. 00:51:920 (1,2,3) - Why put this pattern here, but not 00:48:957 (1,2) - here? Just seems very inconsistent.
5. 01:09:698 (1,2) - The single note should be between these two, not 01:10:439 (2,3,4) - .
6. 01:24:142 - Missed snare
7. 01:51:179 - to 02:00:068 - feels like it rhythmically made no sense. It didn't follow the vocals very consistently (01:54:142 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - compared to 01:51:179 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - , etc.) and should be fixed.
8. 02:32:661 (1,2) - I suggest this should be a repeat. These are usually pretty weird to play in a normal. Besides, aside from that one point, this kind of pattern isn't used that much throughout this diff.
9. 02:52:476 - and 02:52:846 - I think you should stick to vocals here.
10. 03:31:550 - Missed snare.
11. 03:36:735 - Missed another snare.

Ongaku wrote:

from queue, sorry for delay, stuff came up. np

Also, something with the timing. Timing should be 782, vocals are off on the current timing. It's really late with your timing lol, the timing is okay atm

Umi's Insane:

1. 00:10:991 (1) - Curve to blanket 00:09:694 (1) - ? if I do that, it will point the slider's way down, wouldn't flow really well with 00:11:361 (2) -
2. 00:19:235 (8) - you should stack it over 00:19:327 (1) - , would be a bit cleaner would be weird to play imo
3. 00:23:401 (1) - I really don't think you should end on the big white tick here. Just make it a 3/4 slider and add a note 00:23:772 - . Would be a bit smoother. the big white tick doesn't have a really intense sound so it's okay to keep it like this
4. 00:42:198 - Dunno about this, I understand the pause here, but you're still missing the taps here. I suggest a double or triple, really up to you if you consider this. Will keep it that way, breaks are cool
5. 00:58:216 (3) - Missed snare already hitsounded
6. 01:03:772 - Please add a note here, the instruments played here. If it were just the vocals, that'd be fine. But in this case, a note is necessary. the spinner starts at the sound and it follows the sound, why would I add a note here xd
7. 01:03:772 (1) - I feel like spinner should end 01:04:883 - here. 01:05:068 - Has too big of an impact to just end a spinner on. it would end on nothing if I do that lol
8. 01:09:698 (1,2) - Should be a slider if we're going to follow the pattern you've been following. follows the vocals lol
9. 01:20:439 (3,4,5) - Slider starts too early on the vocal part, which made it sound weird. I suggest you rearrange the pattern to make it follow the vocal better. mapping the instrumentals for the triples here
10. 01:21:179 (7) - Should this slider start on 01:20:994 - because of the vocals? reason above
11. 01:35:253 (3,4,5) - A similar situation as above. ^
12. 02:00:994 (4,5,6) - The transition to instruments here start too early. I suggest you make 02:00:994 (4) - a slider, removing 02:01:179 (5) - . This should smooth out the transition from vocal to instruments in the build up. I really hope you consider this. sound on 02:01:179 (5) - is stronger than 02:00:994 (4) - it would be weird to make a slider end on such a strong sound getting stronger after
13. 02:03:309 - Guitar here, Don't know if you intentionally missed it, but I suggest you try your best to include this one. nearly inaudible, better not mapping it
14. 02:08:587 (7) - Make it a 3/4 slider? Just to get that guitar strum. there's a very few sliders ending on a 1/4 tick, better not doing it for consistancy
15. 02:09:883 (4,5) - Why not make it a slider? Nothing changes, there aren't two guitar notes here. emphasizing 02:10:253 (1) - with the 2 notes with a flowbreak + higher distance
16. 02:13:957 (5,6,7,8,9) - Sits in an awkward position in terms of pattern and focus wise, since you mapped 02:11:920 (1,2,3,4) - 's guitar, which is transitioning onto the next section, but completely ignored it 02:13:401 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - here. You didn't map the drums 02:11:920 (1,2,3,4) - here, so why start now? to prepare the rhythm change here 02:14:883 (1) - and the guitar sounds different, explaining the change
17. 02:17:105 (4,5) - I think there should be a slider here following the guitar, or at least 02:17:476 (6) - here. 02:17:105 (4,5,6,7) - theses jumps follows the guitar
18. 02:44:513 (1,2,3,4) - You should start off with sliders like you did earlier, would make more sense. changed
19. 02:57:476 (6,7) - I think these should be a slider instead. emphasizing the 02:57:476 (6) - sound, and 02:57:661 (7) - sounds too strong to make it end on a sliderend
20. 03:14:698 - This part feels severely under mapped since you missed a ton of instruments you were mapping along with earlier. I don't think you should do this, since the transition should start 03:15:624 - . unmapped sounds are not really audible, and it become really stronger at 03:15:809 (1) -
21. 03:31:550 - missed snare. hitsounded
22. 03:36:364 (1,2,3,4,5) - Weird transition, I suggest you keep going with what you had before, but this one is up to you. It's alright this way
23. 03:37:661 - Drums here. main sound ends here 03:37:476 (5) -
24. 03:40:068 (4) - NC? did not NC before, don't think I will NC here

Hard:

1. 00:06:176 (7) - Why not just stack this under 00:05:991 (6) - ? It'd fit with 00:02:657 (5) - . (kind of) sound of the 6 is stronger
2. 00:35:439 (5) - NC here, also, You should try and make this more distinct in terms of field arrangement. Like, distance it a bit more. done
3. 00:38:587 (5,6) - Stands out because theres no note between it (00:39:142 - ) like 00:41:550 (5,6,7) - , etc. not gonna map when there's no sound at all lol
4. 01:05:994 (3,4,5,6) - Might be a bit difficult to read since it's overlapped by 01:05:068 (1) - . it's alright
5. 01:10:624 (4) - Woah, broke pattern consistency here. This just sounded weird since you missed 01:10:809 - . vocals
6. 01:15:809 - Following 01:12:661 - 's pattern, shouldn't 01:15:624 (1,2) - be a slider? That way you can add a note 01:15:994 - here and let 01:16:179 (3) - be a 1/1 slider. Keeping consistency in terms of pattern is important. both sounds on 01:15:624 (1,2) - are more intense than the others, that's why I chose to make 2 singletaps instead of a slider
7. 01:17:476 - Add a note here since the note density is dense anyways. no sound on it, no reason to map it
8. 01:23:587 (7) - Why should this be a 1/1 slider when 01:20:624 (6,7) - is this? Makes no sense. I simplified that part for 01:23:587 (7,8,9) - and a set of 3 notes, followed by a 1/2 slider and a triple after would be too hard
9. 01:25:809 (5,6,7) - Awkward pattern, tad weird to play tbh, I don't see any problems on it lol
10. 01:39:327 - I think you should add a spinner, doesn't hurt to add it here, since theres nothing after it that makes it difficult. It's okay like this
11. 02:35:068 (1) - Avoid landing on big white tick here, just makes playing 02:35:809 (2) - more awkward. kicks, if I stop 02:35:068 (1) - before it would sound weird
12. 02:41:550 (2) - NC here. done
13. 03:09:698 (4) - Feels underwhelming now because you mapped something similar (03:06:735 - ), so it also feels inconsistent. vocals
14. 03:12:476 (5,6) - Same case, why should it be 2 notes? Nothing much changes. There would be like 6 sliders in a row, boring to play
15. 03:31:179 (7,8) - I think these would fit better as sliders, considering you've done it in the intro too (00:15:624 (7) - ) in which case they're pretty similar. 03:30:994 (6,7,8) - follows the violin and the intro has a different sound

Advanced:

1. 00:21:364 (5,6) - I think you should stick to what you did on 00:15:439 (6,7,8) - , but with 00:21:920 - being a single circle note. not the same rhythm, 00:21:364 (5,6) - theses makes a break after the 6
2. 00:35:439 (4) - Make this a bit more distinct, like adding an NC or distancing it a bit more. 00:35:439 (4,5,6) - thoses follows the vocals, and the fact that they are on the other way of the previous sliders shows that it's different
3. 00:38:587 (5,6) - Quite questionable since you didnt add a note in between, but you did 00:44:513 (1,2,3) - here and 00:39:327 (6,7,1) - here. fixed
4. 01:28:772 (4,7) - Not sure about the reading here, but I think it should be ok. NC'd
5. 02:07:105 - Missed snare.
6. 02:07:846 - Missed another snare here.
7. 02:11:550 - Snare should be here.
8. 02:42:290 - Unnecessary snare here?
   fixed hitsounds

Normal:

1. 00:19:327 (1,2) - why the change of pattern? It just threw off 00:19:883 (2,3) - and made it sound really weird, especially when you missed 00:20:624 - . 00:19:327 (1) - follows the guitar, and a break is always fine on Normal diffs, else there would be too much notes on the screen for a Normal
2. 00:40:809 (2,3) - Yes, it might be redundant, but I still think this should be a repeat, since it's really the only pattern in that part. 3 reverse sliders in arow would be too boring
3. 00:43:772 (2) - Shouldn't this be a repeat since you did a repeat for 00:37:846 (2) - ? no, both follow the vocals, 00:43:772 (2) - has no vocal on 00:43:957 -
4. 00:51:920 (1,2,3) - Why put this pattern here, but not 00:48:957 (1,2) - here? Just seems very inconsistent. music grows stronger at 00:51:920 (1,2,3) - that's why there's a note mapped on the 1/2
5. 01:09:698 (1,2) - The single note should be between these two, not 01:10:439 (2,3,4) - . the 1/2 note here 01:10:994 (3) - emphasizes 01:11:179 (4) - which is a big white tick
6. 01:24:142 - Missed snare It's hitsounded already ?
7. 01:51:179 - to 02:00:068 - feels like it rhythmically made no sense. It didn't follow the vocals very consistently (01:54:142 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - compared to 01:51:179 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - , etc.) and should be fixed. fixed
8. 02:32:661 (1,2) - I suggest this should be a repeat. These are usually pretty weird to play in a normal. Besides, aside from that one point, this kind of pattern isn't used that much throughout this diff. 02:32:661 (1) - mapped on kicks, 02:33:031 (2) - is a different sound
9. 02:52:476 - and 02:52:846 - I think you should stick to vocals here. It's more intuitive that way, and leaving a 1/1 break is boring
10. 03:31:550 - Missed snare. hitsounded already
11. 03:36:735 - Missed another snare. ^

There you go. Hard needs a bit of work, Advanced seemed pretty okay. Umi need's to work on a bit of consistency, also some hitsounds are missing on a few diffs. litoluna needs to work on not ending those sliders on big white ticks. In some cases, its fine, but in this case I ask you avoid it.
(I modded the other diffs because they had some stuff that were questionable, so take a look into that. If you don't, thats completely fine, but I suggest you do it anyways. It totally wasnt because I forgot to only mod advanced and hard)

Now I get why you wanted me to only mod the Advanced and Hard. orz

Sir Idea wrote:

[Advanced]

01:03:401 (7,8) - Je chipote un peu mais je trouve que le spacing un peu perturbant, vu qu'il y en a pas eu ce genre de spacing avant, du coup j'ai l'impression que ça peu rendre le joueur confus. J'ai séparé les deux notes

Bon bah voilà c'est tout ce que j'ai trouvé désolé, c'pas du modding de qualité x)
Mais la map est sympa

cococolaco wrote:

hi from q

Hard

00:05:991 (6,7) - stack 7 under 6 both are stronger than the others so making notes instead of a slider is fine
00:13:402 (1,2) - ugly imo rip
01:59:142 (6) - if u dont want slider cuz the vocals cut off at least stack it I did not stacked before, so I won't do it here xd
02:01:550 (5,6,7,8) - new players might mess up idk guess it's okay like this, it introduces the insane with jumps
02:35:068 (1) - sliderend on downbeat following the guitar thing

Advanced

00:02:657 (5) - y not do slider circle to emphasize last note no need to, no intensity change, same goes for the 2 things below
00:08:583 (5) - ^
01:02:661 (5) - ^
00:35:439 (4) - NC?
00:51:179 (7,8) - ^
00:54:142 (6,7) - ^
00:57:105 (6,7) - ^ and they're curved now? used to be straight It's better to diversify the sliders sometimes xd
01:00:068 (6,7) - ^
01:03:772 (8) - shouldnt be stacked under something since it makes it seem weaker

-Mo- wrote:

I thought this was ranked for some reason.

But I'll check this, I love this song.

1. 00:05:805 (6) - remove the reverse from this and put a circle 00:06:176 - this sounds to me better
2. 00:07:843 (3) - blanket is a bit off
3. 00:08:583 (5) - same as the first point
4. 00:09:694 (1) - make this 2 sliders instead of a 1 beat slider
5. 00:12:287 (7) - put a circle here and move the slider to the red tick, also silence the sliderend for this
6. 00:35:439 (1,2,3) - maybe move these a little further from 00:35:068 (3) - because of the volume change
7. 01:24:513 (1) - move the slider to the red tick and put a circle here, same for the later ones

1. 00:09:694 (1) - same as the advanced make this 2 sliders instead of a 1 beat slider
2. 02:11:920 (1,2) - this is some funky rhythm, its not 1/3 but i would leave it like this for playability but still wanted to point it out

Senery wrote:

Hi! from my queue

[Advanced]

1. 00:05:805 (6) - remove the reverse from this and put a circle 00:06:176 - this sounds to me better I find it weird D:
2. 00:07:843 (3) - blanket is a bit off
3. 00:08:583 (5) - same as the first point same as first point then xd
4. 00:09:694 (1) - make this 2 sliders instead of a 1 beat slider I prefer leaving a break and the slider follows the vocal better (sen-pai)
5. 00:12:287 (7) - put a circle here and move the slider to the red tick, also silence the sliderend for this no, I don't want to end the slider on nothing xd
6. 00:35:439 (1,2,3) - maybe move these a little further from 00:35:068 (3) - because of the volume change
7. 01:24:513 (1) - move the slider to the red tick and put a circle here, same for the later ones no, follows the vocals better atm

[Hard]

1. 00:09:694 (1) - same as the advanced make this 2 sliders instead of a 1 beat slider same as the advanced reply
2. 02:11:920 (1,2) - this is some funky rhythm, its not 1/3 but i would leave it like this for playability but still wanted to point it out

that's it, i hope it alright
i really like the song

Ongaku wrote:

litoluna's Insane:

1. 00:08:583 (2,3,4,1) - Looks really awkward. Just make one slider and rotate it 90 degrees in a square orientation. Should help aesthetic wise. I don't see any problems on it D:
2. 00:41:457 - Wouldnt there be a note here, since theres one 00:38:494 (6) - here? For the snare, since there was one 00:38:494 (6) - here.
3. 00:45:624 (1) - Really don't think you should end on a big white tick, since a vocal is also there including the instrument.
4. 01:13:957 (1,2) - I see no real reason to not make it a slider, nothing much changes other than a change of measure. vocals are more intense than before
5. 02:07:846 - missed snare. already hitsounded
6. 02:08:587 (3) - again, I strongly suggest you don't end a slider on a big white tick in this case. It ruins the instrument's momentum from the beginning of the section. Follows the guitar
7. 02:10:253 (1,2) - Guitar doesn't change much, so I don't know why the pattern should. Make it a slider with the rest? it's more intense lol
8. 02:16:920 (3) - The slider ends on the guitar's note point, which makes it sound very awkward when you play it. I suggest you make 02:17:105 - where the slider starts or at least make it distinct so the guitar is properly emphasized here.
9. 02:42:290 (5) - why the extra snare here?
10. 03:22:661 (8) - Again, a slider ends on another vocal and instrument point. Avoid these. follows the guitar

-Mo- wrote:

Umi's Normal
- 00:09:324 (6) - Removing the whistle would sound and fit better I feel. It's on all other diffs, and it's mapped on the main instrumental (idk how it is called lol xd)

rohasshiki wrote:

M4M for Advanced diff, sorry it's so late I've been busy

Advanced

1. 00:07:287 (2,3) - These feel awkwardly spaced even though they're technically correct well.. Distance snapping lol
2. 00:17:476 (3,4) - maybe blanket
3. 00:22:290 (1,2) - maybe blanket No, I made a symmetry already xd
4. 00:28:957 (3,4) - these aren't parallel but 00:31:920 (3,4) - feels like is is parallel. for consistency maybe stick with one style made that on purpose
5. 00:49:698 (4,5) - could blanket this, dont really have to symmetry thing xd
6. 01:20:994 (6,1) - blanket is a little crooked, adjust slightly to fix
7. 02:12:290 (2,3,4) - spacing seems uneven DS
8. 02:38:957 (8,9,10) - spacing seems uneven here DS
9. 02:51:735 (4,5) - same thing with parallel sliders here, you used mostly parallel in other parts so maybe make these straight on purpose
10. 03:33:216 (4,5) - maybe blanket no, I made straight sliders all the way xd
11. 03:35:994 (3,4) - maybe blanket same as above
    it's a really well made map as far as I can tell, so not a whole lot to complain about. not sure what you wanted from the mod so if you want anything additional let me know (like flow or hitsounding) It's fine don't worry !

Yasaija 714 wrote:

m4m

• 
  Advanced

1. 00:34:698 (2,3,4,5,6) - I think it's a bit boring I'll leave it like this, it follows the pitch of the vocals
   00:35:439 (4) - As the sound becomes bigger from here, how about changing the slider away from the distance?
2. 00:51:179 (7) - I think that NC can be used according to lyrics
   00:54:142 (6) - 00:57:105 (6) - 01:00:068 (6) - ^
3. 01:09:698 - Add finish not needed
4. 01:30:439 (7) - Add NC
5. 02:37:846 (4,5,6,7,8,9,10) - How about unification in stack? I think it's good as it is right now, doesn't require too much movement for an advanced diff, but still making the player move a little to prepare for the Hard diff
   02:38:216 (5,6) - 02:38:772 (7,8) - 02:39:327 (9,10) - to stack
6. 02:39:883 (1) - I think that this is the slider return I wanted to mark the fact that the part is over and that a break is coming
7. 03:40:068 (6) - Add NC would be too spammy
   just like hard

• 
  Hard

1. 00:33:401 (7,1) - I think the distance is a bit far away not really, the break leaves the player enough time to hit it
2. 00:35:439 (5) - Same as advanced
3. 00:44:513 (5) - Ctrl+G is better
4. 01:25:809 (5,7) - Why stack only here? 01:25:809 (5,7) - both have the same pitch
   I guess stack is strange here in the same combo
5. 02:37:846 (4,5) - Why is there less pickup sound than Advanced? because there's a jump here 02:39:327 (7,8,9,1) -

Good luck!

pishifat wrote:

lito
00:45:624 (7) - shouldn't be a whistle on tail according to previous 3/4 sliders
02:12:753 (6,8) - i want to say snapping is a mistake but your hitsounding makes it seem like you might have acutally wanted to do that lol
either way, should just go with 1/3 and avoid hitsouding the drums. sounds like objects are unsnapped when you hitsound stuff that's not in sync

hard
01:04:698 (4) - i think you forgot to lower volume ont he tail lol. even got the green line there

adv
00:41:550 (1) - 2 bar comboing gets off here. 00:43:031 (5) - should have a nc and 00:41:550 (1) - 00:44:513 (1) - shouldn't
03:30:253 (4,6,7) - stack makes stuff pretty gross when both 4 and 6 are visible at the same time can move 6,7 down/right a bit

get mo to rebub then i'll qualify!!

Umi wrote:

oh it's happening ! go for it kyuukai

pishifat wrote:

uhhh

Marcuddles wrote:

Sorry, these things make me really angry (especially when we talk about my favourite singer's songs ;w;) and I become kind of crazy
Again, sorry, I don't really mean to insult

juankristal wrote:

Marcuddles wrote:

Sorry, these things make me really angry (especially when we talk about my favourite singer's songs ;w;) and I become kind of crazy
Again, sorry, I don't really mean to insult

All cool, just try to control yourself a bit better the next time

If you want, you could edit your post a bit as an apology!

Marcuddles wrote:

Yes, it's necessary because this map isn't ready for ranking
And it's not a "compulsion of my mapping style": okay, some points may be too much oriented to it (and it's really a small part...), but the rest is an objective thing. You emphasized uselessly a lot of stuff and you didn't do it when it was necessary

I'd really like you to read my mod and understand what I said i I my mod
In any case, you should answer to my mod and explain why my points are wrong to you.

-Mo- wrote:

Umi's Insane
- 00:02:657 (3) - Moving this to about (125, 307) would make this slightly neater so that 4-3-5 has even distance.
- 00:49:698 (4) - Flipping this is one way to improve the relative spacing, but I still feel this note is significant enough to be emphasised in some way, instead of having the spacing drop. This note is also very similar to 00:50:253 (1) which I believe making these sliders similar in direction was Umi's original goal. My suggestion would either be to increase 3-4 spacing (move to (320, 302) or similar), or leaving it how it was before is fine in my opinion.
- 01:02:105 (1,2) - This spacing is inconsistent with the rest of the combo so I'd move 1 around a bit more.

1. Silence the sliderend.(ignore:02:03:031 (1) - )
2. NC mod.(ignore:01:10:624 - ,02:25:253 - )
3. some big spacing.
4. changed circles 00:45:253 -

Kyuukai wrote:

fixed Umi's diff and changed the background

MrSergio wrote:

Kyuukai wrote:

fixed Umi's diff and changed the background

Exactly... what?
Nothing major seems to have happened on the diff tbh. Yes, I saw a couple of things changed )probably due to Mo's mod too) but the big concerns are still there: different parts of the song are expressed the same way spacing-wise and rhythmically

Marcuddles wrote:

I'm not okay with the only few things that litoluna fixed and I came to the conclusion that the problem is mainly his mapping style, that ignores a lot of sounds in the song and doesn't add emphasis in the right moment (and vice versa, adds emphasis in the wrong moment)
It's probably useless explaining again what I said in the mod, I don't think he would fix

Anyways, I think Sergio and I are missing a kudosu :v

1. 00:18:772 (7) - stacked under 6 feels somewhat better
2. beats like 00:28:031 (6) - 00:28:772 (2) - 00:30:994 (8) - can be deleted to add breaks in the calmer sections for better song expression (this is still an Advanced, hence a lower rhythm would be great, above all on transitions)
   The general idea is that you have not even a single break of 1/1 in this map, which is not that great for a diff which is meant as a bridge between Normal-Hard
3. 00:37:105 - going back to the same rhythm from here on is alright, but before this part you should consider deleting some in-between circles ^
4. 00:51:179 (1,2) - on the same reasoning, these could have been just circles to also give a break and add something particular to the map, which is entirely sliders (most of them being 1/2) // 00:54:142 (1,2) - I won't point similar things twice, hopefully that's not a problem for you
5. 01:03:216 (6) - this works better deleted too
6. 01:05:624 (2,3) - rhythm feels funky here. Ctrl G on their rhythm and fix placement perhaps?
7. 01:34:142 (2,3,4,5) - ye... that many clicks in a row after a calm part full of 1/1 sliders feels kinda off and too sudden. Maybe use a slider for those three beats instead. Breaking slightly DS is also an option if it becomes hard to rearrange
8. 01:38:031 (6) - also circle works better imo. As I said, the diff seems kinda intense and full of 1/2 which is kinda harsh even for an advanced imo
9. 01:51:179 - 02:00:068 - This is not minor at all: please try to use a less intense rhythm for this calm section. Right now it is too similar to any other part in the map, while we can both agree this is not the case for the song, isn't it? Try using more 1/1 sliders and breaks and avoid 1/1 slider + circle + 1/1 slider like 01:54:142 (1,2,3) - , since that's the main characteristic of your patterns outside the calm part here
10. 02:03:031 - why do I feel a kiai started from here but the timing sections don't have kiai enabled? xD
11. 02:35:624 (1) - I believe this NC can be avoided (you did this on Hard btw)
12. 03:17:846 (2,3) - this flow kinda sucks, considering you started the combo by introducing a back and forth movement (03:17:105 (1,2) - )

1. I'm fine with 00:30:253 (6,7,8) - this triplet since it falls on an obvious guitar rhythm, but 00:30:994 (9,10,1) - feels kinda out of place in this calm section
2. again plenty of triples during 00:54:883 - 01:00:809 - although it seems a relatively calm part. If I consider frequency, I'd probably expect such redundancy of 1/4 beats in kiai time or so instead (I checked and the kiai time has almost none, so... ?.?)
3. 01:04:513 (3) - stacked on the next slider feels better to me
4. you could have increased a bit SV in kiai time tbh (and spacing with it)
5. 01:29:698 (1,2,3,4) - seeing the song calms down instead of increasing, the jump in-between seems unwarranted too here.
6. 01:37:661 (5,6,7) - triples on slider ends are kinda harsh, not to mention the song is not that intense here (I'm always referring to the fact you have no triples in the kiai time, the supposedly hardest part of the song, so it's mainly your fault here lol). What about deleting 6 and stacking 7 on next slider?
7. 01:51:179 - 02:00:068 - same issue from Advanced, but this time you could have slowed down SV, not only rhythm. Please don't be scared of exaggerating these things if they help define better the song's expression.
8. 02:12:661 (1) - you don't really need to put a NC if it is the same stuff from 02:11:920 (1) - , lol

1. 01:00:809 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - having the same rhythm as more intense parts is again strange. Is there any way to avoid those 1/2?
2. 01:38:772 (5) - that curve can surely be better lol
3. 01:51:179 - 02:00:068 - too dense rhythm once again. This is the calmest part of the entire song, yet you guys (all of you) seem to have something against low density rhythms, LOL. If you're going to map it on par with other parts of the song than better not map it
   There are some slight guitar strokes in background, playing really seldom. Use those perhaps? (they play mainly every 8/1, that's plenty of slow stuff, right?)
4. 02:26:735 - 02:36:920 - again, this part needs less rhythm. It is on par with other parts being way (and really way) more intense in the song.
   You can notice the non-existent difference during the transition to the kiai, which is more intense: 02:36:920 - check before and after that point and notice the similar note density

1. 00:35:439 (3,4) - they work better if fused into a slider (00:35:439 - 00:36:364 - )
2. 01:00:068 (3) - fight - oh! circle - circle
3. 01:00:809 (1,2,3) - this rhythm can be simplified more too. It's on part with other more intense parts. [url=https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/9031567]Random suggestion which uses a lower rhythm
4. 01:38:772 (4) - just a circle at 01:39:327 - works way better imo, for the usual contrast between intense/calm parts
5. 01:51:179 - 02:00:068 - rhythm is again too similar to more intense parts. Consider adding more 2/1 or even 4/1 beats instead of the usual 1/1 slider spam
6. 02:28:216 - YES, this is a good choice. Since rhythm is too low here there is no need to map it at all[/url]

1. overall the diff seems fine, idk what Marcuddles is complaining about in specific.
   I kinda dislike your overmapped triples everywhere on the map, but we might call that "style" (hint: it is not style, and it's completely unwarranted if you ask me but whatever, it's anime)
   To mention a few of those: 01:07:290 (3,4,5) - 01:08:772 (5,6,7) - 01:09:513 (1,2,3) - 02:25:068 (2,3,4) - 02:42:105 (3,4,5) - 02:43:587 (5,6,7) - 02:55:439 (1,2,3) - 02:57:661 (1,2,3) - 03:12:476 (3,4,1) - 03:13:216 (3,4,1) -
   They are actually all. Those are just triples falling on obvious 1/2 rhythms in the song, so they feel overmapped if you follow such instrument (usually vocals. Notice how I rarely, if not at all, pointed out drum triples)
2. 00:10:065 (2,3,4,5,6) - bigger spacing here is meh imo. The real build-up starts from 00:10:991 (1) - so consider reducing spacing before this
3. 01:13:957 (1,2,3) - the stale movement on 2 is kinda meh, considering that's a strong beat. Doable?
4. 01:38:957 (6,7,8) - considering the song calms down you might consider also reducing spacing instead. Feels strange to keep doing crazy stuff when the song doesn't support it
5. 03:39:327 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - it would make sense to use bigger jumps for the second combo, since that's the most intense one between the two

1. 00:13:402 (1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4) - I mean, I didn't point this out last time, but many patterns just feel random.
   By that I mean that there would have been a lot of places these objects could have been fine like that. What I would like to see is something that tells me "if you move this object away from x;y the pattern will crumble, so DON'T DO IT", but this is not the case here, as you can see.
   A few other examples to make it clear: 00:22:290 (1,2,3,4,1) - 00:56:179 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - 01:11:179 (1,2,3,4,5) - (flow on sliders sucks here btw) 01:24:513 (1,2,3,4,5) - 02:14:883 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1) - 02:17:846 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1) - 02:43:031 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - 02:47:476 (1,2,3,4,5) - 03:31:920 (1,2,3,4,5) - 03:34:883 (1,2,3,4,5) -
   These mainly show that the map didn't try to at least look clean, even if it's just generic anime mapping. I do not expect a book of reasoning behind each single part of the map, but if I check the whole map this diff is the only one looking not clean as the others. I also believe I am not imagining things here and you can probably agree with me to a certain extent.
2. 00:26:735 (1,2,3,4) - these spacings look still big, even tho you said you fixed this issue lol
3. 00:48:957 - missing change of pace. Rhythm, spacing and SV are identical to before, so there is no contrast between sections

MrSergio wrote:

Advanced:

1. 00:18:772 (7) - stacked under 6 feels somewhat better I've never put 3 stacked notes during the whole diff, I'll keep it like this for the consistancy
2. 00:51:179 (1,2) - on the same reasoning, these could have been just circles to also give a break and add something particular to the map, which is entirely sliders (most of them being 1/2) // 00:54:142 (1,2) - I won't point similar things twice, hopefully that's not a problem for you Changed some into the rhythm you suggest, but not all

Easy:

1. 00:35:439 (3,4) - they work better if fused into a slider (00:35:439 - 00:36:364 - ) Sound on 00:36:364 (4) - is really strong, wanted to make it clickable

Umi:

1. 00:13:402 (1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4) - I mean, I didn't point this out last time, but many patterns just feel random.
   By that I mean that there would have been a lot of places these objects could have been fine like that. What I would like to see is something that tells me "if you move this object away from x;y the pattern will crumble, so DON'T DO IT", but this is not the case here, as you can see.
   A few other examples to make it clear: 00:22:290 (1,2,3,4,1) - 00:56:179 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - 01:11:179 (1,2,3,4,5) - (flow on sliders sucks here btw) 01:24:513 (1,2,3,4,5) - 02:14:883 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1) - 02:17:846 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1) - 02:43:031 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - 02:47:476 (1,2,3,4,5) - 03:31:920 (1,2,3,4,5) - 03:34:883 (1,2,3,4,5) -
   These mainly show that the map didn't try to at least look clean, even if it's just generic anime mapping. I do not expect a book of reasoning behind each single part of the map, but if I check the whole map this diff is the only one looking not clean as the others. I also believe I am not imagining things here and you can probably agree with me to a certain extent.
2. 00:26:735 (1,2,3,4) - these spacings look still big, even tho you said you fixed this issue lol
3. 00:48:957 - missing change of pace. Rhythm, spacing and SV are identical to before, so there is no contrast between sections

I personally believe Umi's diff needs an overhaul at this point, since I can't seem to improve my opinion about it. The longer I check, the worse it becomes in my eyes.
I might be biased, but some aspects are still lacking from my previous mod (again, contrast between different parts changed slightly. I noticed a change for the intro, but the rest is still bland)

Hope this helps you more than just my old mod. If something is not clear I can give more details eventually

Kyuukai wrote:

If you are reading this post Umi, I'm sorry

MrSergio wrote:

umh... let me first give you a tiny mod on the diffs that weren't mentioned in the modding process post-DQ

The following is minor stuff (aside from bold stuff):

litoluna:

1. overall the diff seems fine, idk what Marcuddles is complaining about in specific.
   I kinda dislike your overmapped triples everywhere on the map, but we might call that "style" (hint: it is not style, and it's completely unwarranted if you ask me but whatever, it's anime)
   To mention a few of those: 01:07:290 (3,4,5) - 01:08:772 (5,6,7) - 01:09:513 (1,2,3) - 02:25:068 (2,3,4) - 02:42:105 (3,4,5) - 02:43:587 (5,6,7) - 02:55:439 (1,2,3) - 02:57:661 (1,2,3) - 03:12:476 (3,4,1) - 03:13:216 (3,4,1) -
   They are actually all. Those are just triples falling on obvious 1/2 rhythms in the song, so they feel overmapped if you follow such instrument (usually vocals. Notice how I rarely, if not at all, pointed out drum triples)
   ->Behind, I can hear the effects of vocals and guitar, so I think that it is no problem to make 3 consecutive games
2. 00:10:065 (2,3,4,5,6) - bigger spacing here is meh imo. The real build-up starts from 00:10:991 (1) - so consider reducing spacing before this
3. 01:13:957 (1,2,3) - the stale movement on 2 is kinda meh, considering that's a strong beat. Doable?
4. 01:38:957 (6,7,8) - considering the song calms down you might consider also reducing spacing instead. Feels strange to keep doing crazy stuff when the song doesn't support it
5. 03:39:327 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - it would make sense to use bigger jumps for the second combo, since that's the most intense one between the two
   ->fixed

[ L u k a s ] wrote:

Lasse's Insane

1. 00:22:661 (1,2) - 2 should be spaced more because the sound is stronger "stronger" sound doesn't have to equal more spacing. the patterning itself already makes this stand out a lot
2. 00:54:142 (1,2,1) - Use the same rhythm as 00:51:179 (1,1) - one of them has a snare drum on the blue tick and one doesn't, guess which
3. 01:38:679 - Put a circle here since there's a sound takes away from vocals
4. 02:00:068 (1,2,3) - All 3 objects should have equal spacing between each other why? looks perfectly fine to me and does what I want it to do
5. 02:12:290 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - Since you use 1/3 here you should NC every object because it looks like 1/4 and it might confuse players repeat slider and comboing/patterning in groups of 3 makes this easily readable, doing https://i.imgur.com/ifoAq6y.jpg would be ridiculous

Lasse wrote:

drum-hitnormal4 has a few ms delay and focuses a mainly on the right channel, so I included a fixed one thanks
you can probably just get the people who qualified this before to check and requalify the map..

pishifat wrote:

so can i