ezek wrote:

well, the kudos is actually fine~ it's valid since there's a diff that wasn't here the first time I came lol (just be sure to not do it a third time 👀)
also, if you're just gonna apply everything in a mod and don't give any comments, I suggest to not quote the mod cuz you're just taking unnecessary space 👀

1. 00:25:781 (4,1) - DS

1. 00:23:437 (3,1) - 00:30:937 (3,1) - DS
2. 00:22:500 (1) - Fix sliderend pls
3. 00:28:125 (4) - NC
4. 00:13:125 (1,2,3,4) - This has the same rhythm as 00:09:375 (1,2,3,4) but the song is not, so a different set of rhythms should be used in order to differentiate the whole measure 00:13:125 from 00:09:375 .
5. 00:31:875 (1,2,3,4) - 00:35:625 (1,2,3) - Same as above, though I wouldn't call leaving 00:37:265 empty as a differentiation.

1. 00:02:578 (2,3) - DS
2. 00:20:390 (4,2) - An untidy overlap, like overlaps are fine but it looks untidy/stand out when you don't usually do them anywhere else.

1. 00:09:843 (3,4) - 1.4 spacing doesn't seem intentional.
2. 00:01:875 (1,2,3) - 00:24:375 (1,2,3,4) - And I don't get why you handled spacings differently considering the rhythms are the same.
3. 00:09:375 (1,2,3,4) - 00:31:875 (1,2,3,4) - Same as above.
4. 00:13:125 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - 00:35:625 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - Would be nice if you can have a more consistent idea on these patterns when the rhythms are the same, referring to the way you grouped up objects with combos and patterns (aka the first one you grouped the rhythm with 4 objects and the latter with 2 which idk why)
5. 00:19:453 (3,4) - 00:41:953 (2,3) - Inconsistent spacings?
6. 00:43:125 (1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3) - Comboing aside, I don't get what's your idea on the pattern, the whole thing gave me the impression that objects are randomly placed (I'm telling you to at least try making patterns like 00:13:125 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - 00:35:625 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) which are more visually obvious) , also:
   
   1. 00:20:859 (2,3,4) - Okay so you intended to group these sounds together as 3 objects but you didn't do the same at the end? And both places are like spaced in an entirely different way 00:43:359 (2,3,4) -
   2. 00:42:656 (4,3) - Overlap should be cleaned up.
   3. 00:44:062 (5,1) - Swap NC.

1. 00:10:546 (4) - 00:33:046 (4,5) - The song is looped two times but this is the only instance where your rhythms are different between these two loops lol in case you care
2. 00:32:109 (2,3) - Would be nice if you can differentiate these two considering the rhythms on these sliders are not quite the same. Using 2 circles instead of 00:32:578 (3) or some changes in the flow like what you did with 00:10:078 (3) could also work.

Electoz wrote:

Requested like half a month ago

[Hard]

1. 00:09:843 (3,4) - 1.4 spacing doesn't seem intentional.
2. 00:01:875 (1,2,3) - 00:24:375 (1,2,3,4) - And I don't get why you handled spacings differently considering the rhythms are the same. I tried to make the 2nd part harder than the first part becouse people will already know what will the rhythm be, so people can already adjust with the spacing for the 2nd part jumps stuffs.
3. 00:09:375 (1,2,3,4) - 00:31:875 (1,2,3,4) - Same as above. ^
4. 00:13:125 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - 00:35:625 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - Would be nice if you can have a more consistent idea on these patterns when the rhythms are the same, referring to the way you grouped up objects with combos and patterns (aka the first one you grouped the rhythm with 4 objects and the latter with 2 which idk why) I don't really sure this is a big issue imo, since its kinda boring to have the same idea of the jump so I create a variation for it.
5. 00:19:453 (3,4) - 00:41:953 (2,3) - Inconsistent spacings?
6. 00:43:125 (1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3) - Comboing aside, I don't get what's your idea on the pattern, the whole thing gave me the impression that objects are randomly placed (I'm telling you to at least try making patterns like 00:13:125 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - 00:35:625 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) which are more visually obvious) , also:
   
   1. 00:20:859 (2,3,4) - Okay so you intended to group these sounds together as 3 objects but you didn't do the same at the end? And both places are like spaced in an entirely different way 00:43:359 (2,3,4) -
   2. 00:42:656 (4,3) - Overlap should be cleaned up.
   3. 00:44:062 (5,1) - Swap NC.
   okay then I would use the same as 00:20:625 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - except different spacing.

aaa not interested + there's like 2-3 BNs already looking at this set so I don't think I have to involve in nomination process so there's that
good luck~

Electoz wrote:

[MBomb's Platter]

1. 00:10:546 (4) - 00:33:046 (4,5) - The song is looped two times but this is the only instance where your rhythms are different between these two loops lol in case you care - Essentially the same the second doesn't have a direction change and because of how sliders work, I couldn't have a reverse slider that doesn't change direction.
2. 00:32:109 (2,3) - Would be nice if you can differentiate these two considering the rhythms on these sliders are not quite the same. Using 2 circles instead of 00:32:578 (3) or some changes in the flow like what you did with 00:10:078 (3) could also work. - I feel like the current flow change is enough to distinguish them.

aaa not interested + there's like 2-3 BNs already looking at this set so I don't think I have to involve in nomination process so there's that
good luck~

Error- wrote:

Hello, someone's here? 👀

1. 00:10:781 (5,1) - This blankets is very off, you can stop at the blue tick between the two objects to use the approach circle as reference to make it better, like this.

ezek wrote:

[Hard]

Error- wrote:

Electoz wrote:

1. 00:13:125 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - 00:35:625 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - Would be nice if you can have a more consistent idea on these patterns when the rhythms are the same, referring to the way you grouped up objects with combos and patterns (aka the first one you grouped the rhythm with 4 objects and the latter with 2 which idk why) I don't really sure this is a big issue imo, since its kinda boring to have the same idea of the jump so I create a variation for it.

This point seems to be valid as well~ You should at least be consistent with the combos. The first pattern looks weird compared to the second one. The second one is very pretty and organized while the other has different combos and the spacing is different, so you should at least go with a similar pattern/concept on the first one if you don't wanna do the same pattern. okay I decided to do the same with a lil bit change, but their pattern should looks the same~

Electoz may be a catch only BN at the moment, but he also has the skills of a standard BN~ Electoz std BN when

Bonsai wrote:

wouldn't call this chiptune tbh

Monstrata wrote:

Fix and this gets ranked probably. (I completely forgot and no one remembered to remember to remember to remember me )

Monstrata wrote:

oops bubbled

1. 00:13:125 (1,2) -
2. 00:43:125 (1,2) -

Ranking Criteria wrote:

Basic hyperdashes (1/1, 1/2) may begin to appear, but must not be used in conjunction with each other. Platters should serve as an introduction to hyperdashing, meaning strong hypers (e.g. with a distance snap of 1.5x above the trigger distance) and hypers combined with antiflow patterns must not be used.

Ascendance wrote:

The RC says nothing about them being strong or weak, but rather that in all cases it is not allowed. The first one definitely does not have enough, even by that standard though.