titan
- titan wrote:
Easy
01:06:354 (3,2) - bad blanket fixed
01:06:668 (1,2) - you use a 3/2 repeating slider here, but not for here 01:04:155 (1,2) and imo it would be better if you used it both places might be too dense for easy so i variate it
Normal
00:04:205 (2) - sharp angled slider seems unnecessary here + 00:03:394 (1) isn't perfectly spaced between the slider head and tail idk,
kinda feels unnecessary
00:10:691 (2) - same thing about the sharp angle (and a lot of the other times you use sharply angled sliders i don't think are appropriate. i don't feel like pointing them all out/)
Insane
00:08:259 (2,3) - bad blanket i really can't blanket lo l
00:11:299 (3,1) - why is spacing so big here this part of the song is pretty calm it's for the triangle
00:18:799 (4,1) - uncomfortable to play imo it's ok
00:34:626 (4,1) - imperfect blanket as well
00:39:024 (1,1,1) - why are these slider shapes so different when they represent basically the same thing they actually get stronger
00:54:417 (2,1) - blanket
good luck!
pk h g
pkhg wrote:
[Insane]
why not just ar9 sure[Normal]
- 00:09:475 (3,1) - swapping these works better due to the hold vocal note on 00:09:475 - idk, it feels a bit weird to me
- 00:20:826 (2) - well vocals end here but a circle doesnt really represent it well. extending the previous slider until this point or just deleting the circle are better choices cuz music doesnt support a circle. the only thing its doing is making the gap between it and the next slider shorter fixed
- 00:33:998 (1,2) - music doesnt really supports such a large jump so what about doing this http://puu.sh/xydrb/b0af8b4131.jpg okay
- 00:49:862 (4,5) - 00:52:375 (4,5) - 00:57:401 (4,5) - and so on. id rather map them like you did with 00:54:888 (4) - or at least using less distance between them cuz theres nothing that stands out to. there are some that are kind of justified like 00:57:401 (4,5) - 00:57:401 (4,5) - 01:07:453 (4,5) - where 5 has a vocal note but ur map seems to be more drums oriented so what i said earlier should work better fixed
[Easy]
- 00:12:313 (4,5) - higher density than higher diffs doesnt make much sense to me. u can maybe try something like this http://puu.sh/xz1iO/9fc72876f1.jpg
well most of the beginning is more dense than hard so try to use larger gaps or sliders i did something similiar- 00:20:826 (2) - same as insane fix
- 00:35:097 (4,5) - that 3/4 gap feels weird considering that u were following vocals with the previous notes. this sound more fitting imo http://puu.sh/xz1uT/9192f4c69b.jpg fix
- 00:35:882 (6,7,1,2,3,4) - ^same goes to this pattern. http://puu.sh/xz1z9/f04791fb79.jpg fix
- 00:39:024 (1) - 00:42:793 (2) - same as 00:12:313 (4,5) - i think u can even reduce the sv a bit here ok
- 00:06:637 (1,2,1,2) - the way u handled vocals leaded you to this pattern 00:12:313 (2,1) - which is very misleading cuz there are no hold vocal notes during the first slider and the actual one starts where the slider ends ignoring it completely, then we have this 00:12:313 (2) - which isnt following vocals like the rest of this section and gives importance to a faint sound. this rhythm fixes all that stuff http://puu.sh/xz1Tj/62ab78d0cd.jpg fix
- due to the really low density i cant really tell what layer of the music are you mainly mapping. id buff it a bit to make that more clear
some examples are 00:28:972 (1,2,1,2) - 4 2/1 sliders doesnt makes sense for me but this does http://puu.sh/xz4at/ae30b1bf29.jpg
maybe using more 3/4 sliders in places like 01:24:259 (1,2,3,1) - http://puu.sh/xz4mC/64507533ce.jpg
increasing density in general would be great ok
thanks guys :3