AJamez wrote:

hello from my Q

General

1. maybe add something in the tags? → sure
2. I'm not sure if the source of this song is the name of the album. If yes, pls remove it. The album name is not the source of the song take note of that, instead just place it in the tags. → The song is played during the opening scene of the "Twinsters" Documentary, hence the source. Should be fine I think
3. Why are there numerous bookmarks? they're mainly used for collaboration, that's the purpose of it or maybe just remove some of them cus they seem unnecessary for me →sure
4. umm there some hitsound files that are not used. might wanna make use of them or just delete them. im not going to name them anymore → weird, pretty sure I'm using all of them?

Lost

1. hmm just a suggestion.. maybe add a decimal to the AR? it's quite reasonable since it's the top diff →I'll get more opinions on this
2. 00:04:803 (1) - this slider here gives kinda an antiflow for me, perhaps ctrl g since the music stops for a bit so why not right → I want to reduce movement in parts where the main melody doesn't play. The slider only reflects the typewriter.
3. 00:07:400 (9) - i'd nc this note →sure why not
4. 00:28:313 (1) - move this slider to the red tick instead then just extend it up to white tick after → there is no object at this time. you mean the spinner?
   the relevant sound only starts at 00:28:457 -
5. 00:34:082 (4) - this note seems kinda far visually, stack it with 00:33:217 (4) - instead. I see u did the same like 00:35:380 (3,5) - so why not these two as well → nice catch, did that
6. 00:42:015 (6) - the combo here in this part is quite big i'd say perhaps NC this circle here since it gives a different drum sound here →I'm just noticing that my nc patterning is pretty firetrucked in general, fixed
7. 00:56:582 (5,6,7) - this triplet doesnt quite fitting for me.. idk cus the next part is a stream it just sounds or feels uncomfortable hearing a drum hitting circles in a consecutive way. ik u could probably make this a repeat slider instead yes that's what im thinking but at the same time the repeat slider doesnt suit in as well since u didnt place any of it in the map idk im just pointing this out. → yeah I wasn't sure about this either, I had it as just 2 circles before, and changed due to emphasis reasons. People didn't complain, but i'll possibly just change it back
8. 01:01:919 (6) - i'd nc this for consistency and i hear a different sound here for the percussion as well → yeah
9. 01:07:111 (1,2) - i just feel like these are too spaced or is it just me who thinks these doesnt fit or whatever → well there's a drum on 01:07:255 (2) - so I increased spacing
10. 01:23:409 (9) - i'd nc this and remove nc for 01:23:553 (1) - and then 01:23:986 (6) - NC this too since it gives a more different sound and deserves the nc more imo → nice
11. 01:24:419 (10) - NC this note to emphasis the sound thing since it's the last one as well → okay
12. 01:24:563 (1) - it's better to silence the sliderend of this spinner here cus it ended on a silent way. Do the same for the other diffs as well. → good

this will be the only diff i'll be modding, im sorry but im quitte busy need to mod other maps in my Q
elp thats all! hope i helped something~
GL!

PyroBear wrote:

Only modding top diff cause I have other stuff to do. Like playing your map for example made my day
[Lost]

1. 00:07:400 (9) - NC → fixed
2. 00:14:323 (9) - ^
3. 00:31:053 (2,3) - 00:31:919 (2,3) - These are differently spaced → I increased spacing because I wanted to account for theme variation, also drum emphasis on 00:32:063 (3) -
4. 01:24:419 (10) - NC cause emphasized

→ fixed
I can't really say much cause it's good, I don't believe you're a new player and mapper. I heard some people say that but I'm very doubtful about my mapping quality tbh

2 stars cause I love it →awesome, thanks!

CPLs wrote:

Don't roast me if it's bad

eh

[Lost]
most of your notes are too close together and overlapping. I know it might be intentional, but at least stick some notes further
Sure, it does look good visually, but reading it is a total pain lol (maybe I just suck in this game)

some triplets can be arranged kinda diagonally, since well... it's just three notes and doesn't need to be curved
like 00:31:486 (5) for example, or just stack that → I tried to always curve the triples when the main melody is playing to imply more movement, like I think at 00:38:409 (5,6,1) - it absolutely makes sense. I think its good to be consistent in this regard

00:52:255 (5,6) this too, why not make it straight → yeah I was wondering about this one, but I valued consistency over aesthetics. Will possibly do something about it


this 01:12:303 to 01:13:890 part looks empty, might want to add some clicks
01:16:198 too, until 01:16:919
^two of this are just my preferences, ignore them if you don't want to → I kinda would, but there are no instruments that are worth to be mapped imo. Also I want to reduce rhythm desity due to low tension

[Hard]

00:34:948 (7) make it triplet,can clearly hear the "drums"(?) → I don't want to use 206 bpm triples in Hard

...
can't find another faults

this looks better than my map lol, are u sure you just started mapping

1. 00:04:803 (4) I would have nc here. prefer combos no more than 5 objects.
2. 00:16:053 (1,2) and 00:17:784 (3,4) stick to one way of mapping 3 beat gaps.
3. 01:07:976 (5) nc here like you did in the start of the kiai.

1. 00:06:534 (6,1) I would stack these for extra neatness.
2. 00:29:900 I would keep combo lengths evenly timed rather than following musical sentences.
3. 00:31:630 (4,6) neat, but in a Normal I'd say avoid these.
4. 00:33:361 (1,2) perfect these if they're meant to be blanketed.
5. 00:34:659 (3,4) overlap.
6. 00:46:342 (5,1) blanket slightly off.
7. 00:56:726 (10) ideally such a large number shouldn't be in this diff!
8. 00:57:592 (1,2,3,4) make these symmetrical?
9. 01:04:515 (6) nc
10. 01:14:900 (2,3) blanket.
11. 01:16:630 (4,1) blanket.
12. 01:17:928 (2) a difficulty spike imo.
13. 01:18:361 (3,4) blanket.
14. 01:20:525 (6,1) ok maybe you can get away w/ this idk.
15. 01:21:823 (2,3) blanket.

josh1024 wrote:

From the queue:

Hitsound
Blends in too well to give feedback imo. Interesting. I'm wondering if thats just a volume thing or if I need to get some different samples. Would maybe deleting hitnormals solve this issue?

Easy
Personally, in a 6/8 song, I wouldn't have clicks on both
off-white ticks (I need a better name!) 00:19:804 (5) and half-measure ticks 00:33:794 (5) , if you get what I mean.
Might cause confusion, but it's up to you. Yeah I can get behind the first one, though it was actually quite the headache to figure out a proper rhythm without having two clickable 1/2 objects for the second one. The ones I decided to make clickable should be the ones emphasized though. I'll try to get some testplays.

1. 00:04:803 (4) I would have nc here. prefer combos no more than 5 objects. okay
2. 00:16:053 (1,2) and 00:17:784 (3,4) stick to one way of mapping 3 beat gaps. Hmm if that's a problem I'll remap the intro entirely
3. 01:07:976 (5) nc here like you did in the start of the kiai.

okay

Normal

Will remap the diff considering its issues. Thanks for your feedback.

1. 00:06:534 (6,1) I would stack these for extra neatness. I don't really want to make this a gimmick since it doesn't work at 00:13:457 (6,1) -
2. 00:29:900 I would keep combo lengths evenly timed rather than following musical sentences. recombo'd the entire diff
3. 00:31:630 (4,6) neat, but in a Normal I'd say avoid these. yeah I don't like those either, probably will remap a lot of the diff to avoid them
4. 00:33:361 (1,2) perfect these if they're meant to be blanketed. ok
5. 00:34:659 (3,4) overlap. ok
6. 00:46:342 (5,1) blanket slightly off. ok
7. 00:56:726 (10) ideally such a large number shouldn't be in this diff! ok
8. 00:57:592 (1,2,3,4) make these symmetrical? ok
9. 01:04:515 (6) nc ok
10. 01:14:900 (2,3) blanket. ok
11. 01:16:630 (4,1) blanket. ok
12. 01:17:928 (2) a difficulty spike imo. will reconsider
13. 01:18:361 (3,4) blanket. ok
14. 01:20:525 (6,1) ok maybe you can get away w/ this idk. ok
15. 01:21:823 (2,3) blanket. ok

Hard
A bit of a mess imo.

00:02:928 (2,3) - 00:03:361 (4,5) Same rhythm mapped differently.
00:02:207 (1,2) - 00:03:361 (4,5) Same pattern representing different rhythms.
These might be acceptable if supported by the music, but not here imo. the music seem consistently calm here. Not sure how to adress this yet, I'll do something

As for flow, 00:29:900 (1,2,3,4) zigzags are neither comfortable nor, in this case, visually pleasing.
Might look better if all the sliders are parallel, just my opinion tho.
Well, the point is, conventional flow is often achieved by using intuitive slider shapes.
i.e. movement of a slider body leads into the next note.
zigzags are like the opposite of that, so use them sparing I'd say. The entire difficulty is built around those, like 00:33:650 (2,3,4,5) - 00:40:284 (5,6,7,8,1) - 00:44:034 (2,3,4) - 00:47:207 (5,6,7) - 00:51:390 (3,4) - and many more, basically whenever I want to emphasize the snare. I think uncomfortable movement is fine as long as its predictable, which it is here imo.

Insane
The above mentioned also applies to Insane, except mappers have more freedom.
(Which means more thing could go wrong!)

extra tip here, since all sliders are straight, by keeping all at the same slant, maybe 10 degrees either from vertical or horizontal,
things get rly neat. neat, I'll try that

Mykaterasu wrote:

My side of the M4M from over here!

Your structure is good, so if I point something out, it usually applies a couple times elsewhere.

General

1. 01:29:611 - The piece falls into silence here, instead of 01:28:746 - here, so I feel ending the spinner here would be more appropriate. Agreed, fixed
2. (Examples are found in the "Lost" difficulty) As aesthetic patterns go, 00:02:496 (2,3) - this isn't a bad one; however I feel that it's very odd to use without any clear visual rules. It might be best to only use a couple of specific angles and copy and paste them so it's visually consistent, because you have pretty much every single angle between the sliderend and the 1/2 circle after it. You have;
   >Perfectly Straight 00:11:726 (1,2) -
   >Almost Perfectly Straight 00:05:957 (6,7) -
   >Around 45 Degrees 00:17:207 (5,6) -
   >Almost a Right Angle 00:12:880 (6,7) -
   >A Right Angle 00:22:111 (1,2) -
   >Just Past a Right Angle 00:16:342 (2,3) -
   And in that sense, it's just too messy. I agree, will adjust according angles in the entire set, as I didn't consider that until now.

Easy

1. 00:04:803 (4,5) - This is quite a risky decision, because beginners haven't understood slider mechanics yet. It's much more beginner friendly to completely separate incoming objects from slider objects so that it's clear what the rhythm of the next incoming object is. In fact, this goes against a guideline because of this;
   

   Ranking Criteria wrote:

   Avoid overlapping circles, slider heads, and slider tails. These can be confusing for new players.

   I think the individual circles break this enough to a more acceptable degree (00:02:207 (1,2,3) - ), but some leeway should be given to objects after sliders sycg as (5). Yeah, I'll fix these.
2. 00:33:650 - The melodica plays here which makes it very odd to play the note 00:33:794 (5) - here. Streamlining to a 1/1 slider starting 00:33:650 - here would be much more beginner friendly. You'll have to be pretty careful with this rhythm, because most of the time when you've put a circle on a red tick, the melody plays on a white. In my opinion, rhythms like this belongs in normals which strong support. Hmm yeah I'll get some testplays on this since I would have to basically remap the diff to change this, as I use this rhythm throughout.

Normal

1. 00:38:553 (4,5,1) - I advise heavily against non-periodic/syncopated stacks. I recommend you support the rhythm like 01:01:053 (1,2) - this or 00:31:630 (4,5,6) - this. alright, will fix those.
2. 01:11:438 (1,2,3) - Shouldn't this be shaped like the patterns at the start? uhm the angles are different I guess? will fix that

Hard

1. 00:57:592 (3) - I believe this should be New Combo'd Fixed
2. 01:11:438 (1,2) - Stacks in the slow sections were 1/1 rhythms last time. It's puzzling why you'd change that now. Right. I'll fix that.
3. 01:11:871 (2) - I'm fairly certain this is a mistake on your part, but the slider should certainly start 01:11:726 - here. Hmm the outro is actually entirely mapped to the xylophone-like sound in the background, which probably is not a good idea. I'll remap the ending to make it structurally more consistent.
4. 01:18:361 (1,2,3,4) - Not a straight line. 4 is out. Fixed

Insane

1. 00:13:457 (4,5) - Not sure why you've changed the position of (5), you've done this rhythm with a perfect stack before. (00:02:207 (1,2) - ) Fixed
2. 00:21:101 (5) - should be under 00:20:380 (4) - Fixed
3. 00:57:015 (1,2,3,4) - I highly recommend changing 00:57:015 (1,2) - into 4 circles and 00:57:303 (3,4) - into a 1/4 reverse slider. Agreed,
   that would also adress spread issues given the longer stream in the end.
4. 00:57:592 - The periods in which you've New Combo'd have been shifted, and it's very odd because you land at the end of a phrase and the combo is still going e.g. 01:04:515 (7) - 01:07:976 (6) - . I recommend sticking to what you've done in the Hard. Okay
5. 00:57:592 - The map direly needs some new slider shapes, perhaps in this kiai you can change all sliders to slightly curved? Nice,
   I'll probably do that or something similar

Lost

1. 00:57:519 (8) - This note isn't played by the drum, so it really shouldn't have the clap/be here, up to you. wow, nice catch,
   fixed
2. 00:57:592 - The map direly needs some new slider shapes, perhaps in this kiai you can change all sliders to slightly curved? yup, will do that

Not bad. Good luck.

• 
  Any reason why you use 0.5x SV green lines with 1.0 normal SV? you could just get normal sv to 0.5 and use 1.17 (?) sv greenlines and remove the 0.5x

1. 00:06:534 (5) - honestly I think this would be better at x390 y169 to reduce the clutter and for better readability for newer players. it's fine as is, though.
2. 00:13:457 (5) - stupid minor aesthetic suggestion (tm) but why not put (5) at x93 y171 so that it follows the shape of the slider
3. 00:25:573 (5) - NC? It helps the player realize that (4, 5) is not a 1/1 stack
4. 00:41:150 (6) - you might want to move this up a bit so that (4) isn't touching (6) but reminder that this is also a stupid minor aesthetic suggestion (tm)
5. 00:50:957 (2,3) - i disagree with the rythmn change here- for consistency reasons I'd just go with what you've already done (as before it prioritized the drums and now it prioritizes the horn

lilscribby wrote:

Take my advice with a grain of salt (I'm new as you know) but here are a few things I saw on Hard:

00:29:755 (1) - Is this supposed to be on the drumroll? Without a hitsound, it seems unneeded/detached. I would remove it. I agree
01:11:438 (1) - It's hard to judge the distance between these two notes because the tempo is effectively cut in half for the bells, and the pattern implies a 1/8 note gap. I found it to be much more readable by distance snapping the 1 to the 6 of the last combo. made it less confusing
01:21:823 (1) - Up to this point, the blue was representing the accordion parts and the white/grey was for the bells/typewriter. Why is it different here? Did you not want to end the song on grey? there's a small reprise at the end and I didn't want players to be surprised by the sudden change in rhythm density, but I'll reconsider potentially
Overall I understand the minimal hitsounds, but they are downright inaudible in some parts, and that tripped me up a bit. Making them a bit louder across the board would probably be best I'll try to get them to the same volume as default hitsounds

Good luck, and thanks for the advice!

huntress wrote:

for m4m maybe? i posted in your thread

[Insane]
- the stacking at the start is awkward for me but i can easily see how thats just a design choice (i like the overlapping on the lost diff a lot more though but thats just me)
- 00:05:669 (5) , 00:22:976 (5) - should be new combos right? to match the other similar parts correct
- i like the way your slider shapes represent the calm or intense parts of the music. you could make sliders on strong sounds like 00:31:630 (1) - and 00:32:496 (4) - even more curved to show that, i think could be cool will consider
- 00:51:967 (6) - awkward flow, ctrl g this probably I want 00:52:255 (7) - to flowbreak
- 01:07:400 (2,3) - dont think this should be spaced, not really a sound to be particularly emphasized and doesnt match the other curved shapes that are used, could just move 01:07:544 (3) - to (208,208) drums are increased in volume and I don't want stop movement into that, but reduced spacing a bit
- 01:12:303 (4,1) - , 01:15:765 (4,1) - space these out maybe, theres not a lot of overlapping in this section and other full beat gaps arent represented this way I want to map the new instrument starting at 01:13:313 - through change in movement, also there's no sound between 01:12:303 (4,1) - that's worth any movement

[Lost]
- could increase AR to 9.2 maybe, the high bpm would allow for it and could make it easier to read with the overlapping in places ok
- 00:02:496 (2,3) - these overlaps are nice but the way the circles are placed doesnt really seem to have a specific reasoning. you could have them so they flow directly into the next objects(like 00:05:236 (2,3) - which is nice) I don't entirely get your point, 00:04:803 (1,2) - are overlapped in the same way. I stopped movement at 00:02:496 (2,3) - to emphasize 00:03:073 (4) - better
- 00:56:726 (6,1) - could be spaced more for the full beat gap leading into the stream I think a full beat is enough for people to read, also I don't want movement in the break since there's no sound
- 01:21:390 (2,3,4,1) - , 01:22:544 (4,5,6,7) - i dont think these should be jumps its kind of out of place because the song doesnt change (or is it to lead into the stream?) The rhythm of the drums increase in density implying more tension and therefore increased movement I think

i like the unique song choice and lost diff is really really fun to play good map

cococolaco wrote:

mod4mod

how is this so good arent u new

i keep pointing out no corners cuz it's rly cramped lo

edit: my map here https://osu.ppy.sh/s/683677

[lost]
00:04:371 (8,1) - areas like this r misleading cuz the player would expect 1/2 removed them for now
00:30:476 (6,7,1) - movement funky in these instances not quite sure what you mean by that
00:40:717 (3) - 00:45:909 (3) - 00:52:832 (3) - ctrl g? all other sliders were lead to by the head the head interesting, will have to think about that for a bit
00:33:073 (3) - same idea as hard will consider
also if u ctrl a u have no corners lol yeah I suck
[insane]
00:03:073 (3,4) - u should keep ur stack spacing (timeline) the same in this section. 00:02:928 (2) - like u can easily stack this on 3 for all of these will probably have to remap the intro
00:30:332 (5) - 00:31:198 (3) - sliders starting on weak beat to name a few will probably have to remap the chorus
00:33:073 (3) - same idea as hard will consider
also if u ctrl a u have no edges lol I still suck
[hard]
00:33:073 (5) - i think all these streams could be arranged differently because mapping them all with equal strength isnt very accurate to the song 00:33:073 (5) - is stronger will consider
also if u ctrl a theres no corners xd I'm terrible
[normal]
i think is ok but im not experienced with low diff

Tralen wrote:

Hello from your m4m qua

Hard

there 01:17:640 (1) - and 01:17:784 (1) - - are missing 2 notes, u can make a little stream with 01:17:496 (1) - Ctrol+g to this 01:17:928 (2) -
to follow the flow and not cover the reverse arrow I think it's fine, I don't want to make this part too dense

Insane

why this 01:02:928 (6,7) - like that . Get them closer or stack them not entirely sure what you mean by that, I stopped because the strings stopped playing

Lost

down volumen of this 00:03:073 (4) - in the tail. This with the sames ones(00:06:534 (8) - , 00:09:996 (4) - ) There are still sounds from the typewriter. I even put whistles on those

i think this is 00:18:217 (8) - Useless removed for now

In general u had a good work over there

Cant do to much,i hate the asthetic , i saw some mods and they are saying the same thing " spaced" well, remember u can make your own style

TheKingHenry wrote:

Hello mod from my queue~
Since you said to not touch Hard or above, I'll shall not.

Easy

1. 00:25:573 (1,2) - the previous usage of 00:25:573 (1) - aside, with this here now I'd definitely pattern this in some other way. Like, the most important sounds are now 00:25:573 - 00:26:438 - and 00:27:303 - ; two of which are under slider and not clicked. Simplest solution to improve it would be to break 00:26:726 (2) - into circle + slider so that it covers little more. Actually it's probably the best solution here since you don't want it that much dense or it's not fitting for this section anymore. fixed
2. 00:55:861 (4,5) - for similar reasons, I think it'd be better if 00:55:861 (4) - was reversed so that it covers 3, making it possible to have circle at 00:56:726 - instead of the sliderend fixed
3. 01:24:130 (5) - same thing, except since this is ending you could actually just make this 2 circles instead for the ending climax it is. fixed

Normal

1. These could have more appealing shapes. They don't look symmetrical (dunno if you wanted them to be, usually yes) and the curves look "sharp" for some parts. (as in they have some sort of "turning point" instead of the whole curve being the same smooth) Hmm interesting, not sure how to fix that, as the anker points I used are perfectly symmetrical and I wouldn't know how to do it better
2. 00:48:938 (1,2) - fix blanket fixed
3. this seems massively more dense than Easy, but that won't necessary be problem with the mapset if it fits when they are all ready (again). I tried to make all diffs 1 sr apart from each other, maybe thats a bad thing for lower diffs, I'll get more opinions on this, thanks

Good luck!
EDIT: This somehow reminds me a lot of some VN bgms, especially feels like I'd be in the forest in Rewrite lul