PoNo wrote:

02:56:118 (3) -

02:56:493 (6) -

That two circles aren't stacked correctly, maybe its done on purpose. Just looks weird to me

https://imgur-archive.ppy.sh/pOqHfLW.png

BoatKrab wrote:

I just see winber1's
02:06:993 (2) - There is Normal hs on its tail, but others are not

*no kds*

ProfessionalBox wrote:

PoNo wrote:

02:56:118 (3) -

02:56:493 (6) -

That two circles aren't stacked correctly, maybe its done on purpose. Just looks weird to me

https://imgur-archive.ppy.sh/pOqHfLW.png

its done on purpose to prevent a bigger stacking issue.

ProfessionalBox wrote:

banter wrote:

I feel like there are some spacing issues in the last two diffs regarding the streams at the end.

fanzhen's Extra fanzhen's decisions can be explained with calming down at 03:30:618 - point to build suspense to the very last stream of 03:35:774 (8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15) -


Sweet Surrender I am emphasizing the 2 most important and polar opposite sounds in the song here (03:25:368 - this and 03:26:118 - ) with my arrangement. This kind of going from 100 to 0 is very good to catch those 2 sounds with the added snap movement that the player has to do and you can really feel the impact of the snap because of the arrangement.


winber1's diff also has misrepresentations of music. at 02:45:618 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - the music doesn't change in intensity and should have consistent spacing, however it's mapped as if there's a diminuendo. winber choose to approach this part without streams and his arrangement is built upon the same big distance snap movement at crucial parts like in the top diff

Fixed everything Sinnoh pointed out!

Kaifin wrote:

top diff

that whole section is also literally unplayable in comparison to the rest of the map, which sucks because the map is quite enjoyable

02:12:711 - this part is REALLY good to play though this is super nice

ProfessionalBox wrote:

uhh, ok. Just saying that the part which is in your opinion "super nice" and "really good to play" is the part which most people have to just spam to get through while my "unplayable section" isn't giving much trouble other than hitting all the slidertails. I don't know what to take away from this since it doesn't make any sense to me in the sense that my part is unplayble compared to the one after which is really good to play while in truth both are crazy, will reply with fixes/no fixes later if I ever find another nominator.

Kaifin wrote:

that being said, i don't think its fair to use "most people just spam to get through handsome's section anyways" as an excuse to make things play badly/unreasonably uncomfortably in your section..

-Nishiki- wrote:

sick map

storyboard

could go with a bit of background movement.like the bg should move as though there's a parallax shenanigans going on I ordered it like this,
very minimalistic.

Fanzhen's Extra

00:12:618 (1) - these sliders would be a bit nicer if the slider ends were silent. agree
00:23:118 (1,2,1,2) - should be gradually shrinking in slider velocity no need
00:33:618 (1,2,3) - instead of copying 00:30:618 (1,2,3) ,should this not copy 00:24:618 (1,2,3) ?it would make the section seem a lot more varied,especially since you use a different style every single iteration of the section anyways. I think it's good variety like this, every single one of these doesn't need to be the same [/color]
00:38:868 (3,4) - four short sliders instead of two 1/2 sliders might match the music a bit better. Buildup like this creates more suspense on the next part so it is fine to have like this.
00:45:618 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - this should gradually shrink,but not like in my recommendation in sweet surrender.instead because the spacing is already kinda high in 00:44:868 (1,2,3,4) ,so it would only be fitting that it counter-acted on what 00:44:868 (1,2,3,4) did before it. yeah this shouldn't shrink in the first place imo, current way is fine
00:52:555 (2) - can be like 00:52:368 (1) before it. 2 different sounds so he didn't want 2 same sliders
01:01:743 (5) - should either be spaced a bit more or use a short slider to differentiate it from 01:01:368 (1,2,3,4) preceding it. No need to increase spacing as this is up to interpretation and fanzhen used this spacing consistently in the drop
01:02:493 (1,2) - a long slider might do the trick better than two beats here. I'd say this is preference again, I like the 2 circles myself
01:04:368 (1) - would have interesting flow if ctrl+g'd Interesting doesn't always mean better :^)
01:04:930 (3) - having an important sound so close to 01:04:649 (2) feels a bit odd.maybe change this it builds a triangle with 01:04:368 (1,2,3) - so hence this placement is a must
01:06:243 (1) - don't see why this needs an nc. NC supports reading here imo. Also having no followpoint from the center is more aesthetic
01:08:493 (1) - this can be two beats in the same stack as 01:08:305 (2,3) ,as this delivers the rhythm better and differentiates 01:08:586 (2,3,4) more. This puts emphasis on the very fast 1/8 slider to have them arranged like this seperately from the stack in addition to looking better and completing the pattern
01:10:368 (1) - seems a bit lazy. fanzhen didn't use spacing increase streams in the section at all so this doesn't suddenly call for one either imo. Also since the kiai already climaxed this is tehcnically a cooldown anyways so it should be easier than the parts before
01:39:149 - this sound goes unmapped Follows synth so not having the drum here is understandable (takes away from the synth to have a circle on the drum)
01:51:524 - pretty important sound here too unmapped added a circle
02:00:243 (4) - this can be 1/2 instead of 3/4 Current way emphasises the first object of the kiai much better, the faster snap motion created by the extra length is very essential
02:08:118 (3) - not sure how i feel about this being here I feel its fine
03:36:055 (1) - maybe nc here. This was an obvious design choice so not gonna touch

Sweet Surrender

00:22:555 (2,3,4) - would look pretty dope if 00:22:743 (3,4) were moved to overlap the peaks of the slider superseding it.though i can't make it look good for shit,you're like 10x more experienced than i am. eh? Not sure what you mean but the current way is just fine.
00:47:118 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - don't get why it's spacing more.it would be nicer if instead the stream was spacing less into the kiai. This should obviously be spacing increase in my opinion, no intention at all to change it.
00:49:836 (2) - why doesn't this overlap 00:49:836 (2) ? is it like flow or something and i'm just too stupid to notice 00:49:743 (1,2,3) - triangle pattern, also helps reading
00:52:368 (3) - should be a slider. 00:52:618 (1) - nope because of this starting at a very unique time. Also 2 distinct sounds so one should be circle one slider
00:55:368 (1,2,3,4) - would look bretty cool if 00:55:461 (2) and 00:55:649 (4) had ctrl+g on them and would go with the 'wub' more Current way is aes and good, no need to change
00:56:305 (1,2,3) - a bit dangerous if this is getting ranked.the cross screen triples by rrtyui was already pushing it,this spits in its face.if it's not getting ranked than who cares disregard this. 160bpm = all the difference in the world
00:59:305 (2,2) - having these replaced with straight sliders like pic related looks cool af (don't copy this though this is shit and wouldn't flow well with 00:59:868 (1,2) The movement is more fun without sliders. Also the vocal sound is very short on these timestamps so therefore simple circle is better in terms of following music too
01:00:618 (1) - maybe nicer as a slow slider instead Following the "unwind" sound which is rapidly repeating
01:04:649 (2) - there's an important sound on the tail of this slider.not sure if you wanna shorten the slider and add a beat next to 01:04:930 (3) or something but it should at least be notable.like maybe a little hook on the end of the slider to show there's an important sound around there (again don't copy line for line any shit i do). So many sounds happening at one time that I chose to follow the ones I found most necessary. Here I'm following the the "yea" sounds.
01:05:305 (1,2) - a bit overmapped. 01:05:305 (1) shouldn't exist. For such a cluttered section I feel like this bit of overmap is just fine.
It feels more natural than not having anything there thats for sure
01:10:555 (1) - shouldn't this be linked with 01:10:180 (1,2) before it?like take out the nc and put it on 01:10:743 (2) ,move it closer towards 01:10:368 (2) or something,just make it not a part of 01:10:555 (1,2) . 01:09:899 (2,1,2) - structure
01:26:118 (1,2,3,4,1,2) - a bit overmapped.just stress the beat on 01:26:118 (1,3,1) and you're good. Mapped to vocals + the lead melody as I find this the most appropriate (not landing a circle on a vocal would feel weird)
01:29:118 (1,2,1,2) - this might be cooler if it was like a horizontal version of 01:27:618 (1,2,1,2,1,2) . I did something else here, its the exact same version as I think it fits nicely!
01:57:618 (1) - why can't the spinner start here? 95% of this difficulty maps map the first sound of a measure before putting a spinner afterwards. It feels more natural to click on this very important sound and spin afterwards rather than just start spinning on it right away
02:05:493 (2) - this should be a bit shorter so that it ends on the blue tick before 02:05:868 (1) .like use a smaller slider velocity there. Exact same sound as the one before so its the same like it should be
02:11:774 (1) - maybe make this like 02:11:493 (1) . Slowdown slider fits here perfectly
02:12:055 (1) - move the nc from here to 02:12:243 (2) . NC here indicates difference in slider velocity relative to last object
02:24:618 (2) - there's no nc here? Not having NC here is because of the pattern being built on 1-2 pairing jumps
02:35:868 (1,2,3,4) - this can just be a normal stream I think this catches what is going on better
02:36:993 (5,1,2) - these can be like two short sliders and the nc can start on 02:37:368 (3) instead. I don't see any issues with my current way
02:39:993 (5,1,2) - same dealio here. ^
02:54:805 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - i think this is overmapped a bit. drums
03:04:368 (3) - this could be a short slider unless you wanted to follow 03:03:805 (1,2,3) before it. Consistent with previous pattern and the gap in music is supported by this being a circle
03:06:618 (1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5) - needs a bit of cleaning.especially since 03:07:086 goes unmapped. Following synth
03:12:618 (4) - feels weird not having that be an nc Next object has nc, no need to have 2 in a row
03:15:618 (4) - then again,if it's a pattern,i guess it's fine presicely!

bretty good map probox
liking how it's coming along.sweet surrender feels like it's trying too hard to be technical though,so work on getting that stigma off.
hope to see this with a leaderboard some day! good luck

Vacuous wrote:

Sweet Surrender
00:09:618 (1) - doesn't this go offscreen? It looks like it does

Kaifin wrote:

Please reply to my mod it had parts from both you and handsome i just wanted to give my opinion specifically before you ranked it as to not disturb the ranking process

Kaifin wrote:

Please reply to my mod it had parts from both you and handsome i just wanted to give my opinion specifically before you ranked it as to not disturb the ranking process

theowest wrote:

Pre-nerf ver. better.

Kaifin wrote:

02:52:180 (1,2,3) - might want to make these a touch slower, really small window for the slider ends + it would read a little better since they're straight making them long af and can look like 1/4: just a minor thing though consistency with 02:49:180 (1) -

03:12:993 - making 03:13:930 - clickable as seen in this screenshot would follow the song a lot better and be more intuitive don't really understand where you're coming from, i'm mapping to the vocal/synth/beeps/idkwhattocallit. the second beep at 03:13:836 - is really loud and clear compared to others, but it pairs pretty well with 03:14:024 (1,2) - . i thought it was already pretty clear lol

Milan- wrote:

is really 02:24:571 (1) - on fanzhen meant to be snapped that way? owo

Okorin wrote:

02:24:618 (1) - shit's broken yo

Not-Miraie wrote:

This map was in Qualified. Not anymore

Not-Miraie wrote:

This map was in Qualified. Not anymore

Not-Miraie wrote:

This map was in Qualified. Not anymore

Not-Miraie wrote:

This map was in Qualified. Not anymore

Not-Miraie wrote:

This map was in Qualified. Not anymore

InvisFrames wrote:

Man, why'd this have to be DQ'd. I get it if something is broken in the map, but I'd love for this to be ranked. It's so interesting and fun to play/watch.

InvisFrames wrote:

Man, why'd this have to be DQ'd. I get it if something is broken in the map, but I'd love for this to be ranked. It's so interesting and fun to play/watch.

ScubDomino wrote:

good job probox

Kurai wrote:

me irl

MariahCarey wrote:

fanzhen's Extra

02:24:618 - two green points at the same time with different values btw

ProfessionalBox wrote:

d

Kurai wrote:

ProfessionalBox wrote:

d

q

Monstrata wrote:

Hi, sorry, but according to this image, the artist should be "tofubeats feat. Liz".

Monstrata wrote:

Hi, sorry, but according to this image, the artist should be "tofubeats feat. Liz".

fieryrage wrote:

that's what they said about the big black btw so that's not really a valid argument

also promethean kings lol

Kaifin wrote:

top diff

02:04:836 (1) - think this would be cooler if it was just a circle, since there is no vocal here and you presumably are using the 1/8 sliders because of the vocal on 02:04:555 (1) -, also later you decide to use an extended slider here instead of mapping this note at 02:07:649 (1) - so is there a reason for that inconsistency? can't tell if the sound changes but it sounds the exact same to me

02:04:930 (1) - accidental lower volume? it sounds really weird, would bump it up to 60 cause it makes it sound like a missed sampleset

02:07:555 (2) - should be a 1/8 slider for consistency with 02:04:555 -

02:08:680 (2) - why map this note when you dont map it at any of the gaps like 02:02:680 - or 02:05:680 - where it's just as strong? if you insist on mapping this note please make it a 1/4 slider because 02:08:680 (2,1) - this sort of spacing/structure really reads as a 1/4 gap not a 1/2 one

02:12:055 (1,2) - if these sliders were a bit slower sv then 02:12:430 (1) - would be a lot more emphasized, since there are no real huge emphasized sounds on these notes when compared to 02:12:430 (1) - i dont get why they need to be so fast

02:52:180 (1,2,3) - might want to make these a touch slower, really small window for the slider ends + it would read a little better since they're straight making them long af and can look like 1/4: just a minor thing though

Kaifin wrote:

reply to my mod, it's been requalified twice without a reply and going through the points in the editor it is clear you did not apply it without replying or anything like that

Nyanaro wrote:

insane 10/10 mod


While i personally like this map otherwise, there is something i noticed while playing and would like to mention.

[Sweet Surrender]

When playing maps with high slider velocity and sudden hard-to-read jumps such as 01:42:243 (4) - A player requires time to read such sliders and jumps before actually clicking them. This combined with the map's AR10 makes high velocity sliders and jumps like this close to unplayable excluding players with beyond incredible reaction and reading skills (Which i would say are around 5 of.)

An example of a map similar to this is Hollow Wings' Halozy - Kikoku Doukoku Jigokuraku. This map features the same type of elements as the Sweet Surrender difficulty of CANDYYYLAND. How Hollow Wings' manages to handle reading objects for this map is using an approach rate lower than what the map would otherwise supposed to have, to give the player time to read these objects and patterns beforehand, making them entirely playable.

What i suggest for CANDYYYLAND's Sweet Surrender difficulty is the same. The AR should be lower so that the player could have more time reading the difficult sliders and jumps, making the map more playable and easier to read. I personally suggest AR9.6, but that would be up to the mapper to decide.

1. 00:14:118 - This SV in this section feels much too high for the calmness of the song. When a normal 1/2 slider goes half-way across the screen in a part that only has the addition of drums and a few more notes in the melody from 00:00:618 - I think it's a bit much. Lowering it to .8x or .9x would fit a lot more than 1.2x in my opinion.
2. 00:38:868 - The intensity of the song barely changed yet 1/4 sliders now go across 70% of the screen. I don't think this increase is very representative of the song, at most I would have these at 1.5x AT MOST, anything higher is pushing it I think. There's only some snares and some melody notes and I don't believe those call for such a drastic change in SV.
3. 00:39:618 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1) - This is exactly the same in the song as 00:41:118 (1,2,1,2) - so I'm not quite sure why you decided to use 2.65x sv 1/4 sliders with perfect overlaps the second time, and simply circles the first time? 00:45:618 (1,2,1,2) - These are more intense than that and have half of the SV. Not only is this inconsistent in itself, it is completely inconsistent with 01:29:118 (1,2,1,2,1) - which is also the same thing.
4. 01:04:555 (1,2) - I don't see why 1 should be a slider especially if the drum it's only is only going to be covered by 01:04:836 - . It feels like you put a lot of emphasis on the drum then ignore the same intensity drum right after. I know you want to obviously map 01:04:649 (2) - so it makes sense, but I think having 1 as a circle would fit a lot better imo.
5. 01:05:305 (1) - Note doesn't exist in the song. It's a little odd especially that usually you would avoid overmapping in this section. I think that extending 01:05:118 (1) - to be a 1/2 slider would fit much more the song, but either the SV would need to be lowered or some rearranging would have to be done. I do believe that a change would be beneficial here, though.
6. 01:08:493 (1,1,1,1) - Should keep your NCing consistent: 00:55:368 (1,2,3,4) -
7. 01:25:743 (1) - Not really seeing why this is a 1/4 slider, seeing as 01:24:993 (3) - wasn't. The melody ending doesn't seem like a good justification for this either, I would suggest just leaving it as a circle, especially since the added sliderend kinda sounds out of place.
8. 01:25:180 (1,2,3,4,5) - I don't think this should be a quint mainly because you also did the exact same quint at 01:27:243 (1,2,3,4,1) - except it has a much more intense melody on it. I think for the first one having two 1/4 sliders would work a lot nicer.
9. 01:30:618 - This section also uses a completely different concept from 00:42:618 - yet the earlier section even has added snares you decide to ignore. I also don't see why 01:30:618 - should be any different from 01:27:618 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,1,2,1,2) - because again, it's the same thing with only slight variation at 01:33:243 (1,2,3,4,1,1) - with the backing melody.
10. 01:36:618 (1,2,3,4,5) - This is not really acceptable imo, this sort of spacing/rhythm concept was never introduced before this and such a massive emphasis on 01:36:993 (4) - is so overrepresentative of the small variation in percussion there that it feels out of place.
11. 01:50:118 (1,2,3) - The song's rhythm actually changes here, it's not the same as 01:49:368 (1,2,3) - at all. It's actually more along these lines than what you currently have. It feels really weird to play as it is too.
12. 01:53:493 (1,2,1,2,3) - would be nice to emphasize the "ooo" sound at 01:54:243 - like every other buildup does: 01:30:243 (1) - 00:41:868 (1,1,1,1) - 02:42:243 (1) - . Would look a lot more consistent and representative.
13. 01:57:618 (1) - This slider seems really out of place, if you're just going to spinner out the rest of the buildup it would make more sense to start the spinner at 01:57:618 - instead of putting a slider then ignoring the rest of what that slider's pattern would have mapped out with a spinner.
14. 02:02:305 (1,1) - This doesn't play very well, you have to make a very fast movement to the end of the slider, then to the beginning again only to move again at high velocity to the end. It's not very practical for a slider arrangement and not only that, but since that is so uncomfortable to play players will mostly get 100s on these sorts of arrangements at this speed. I would suggest flipping the second slider so you get something like this instead. This is also the only time in this entire kiai an arrangement of this kind is used, every other instance has cleanly placed sliders like 02:05:305 (1,2) - 02:08:305 (1,1) -
15. 02:04:368 (1,1,1,1,1) - This, similarly, does not play very intuitively. The flow and SV changes make this very difficult to 300 especially with how a player is more likely to move as the red line indicates than the expected green line. Naturally, you are aware of this. So you would also be aware of how the player will be more inclined to drop the sliderends to hit the slower 1's and miss the end of the faster 1's as a consequence, leaving this whole pattern as not much more than an acc dropper with questionable flow. Let's not even mention the speed at which the player needs to accomplish this, it's all 1/4 and 1/8 sliders.
16. 02:06:618 (1,1) - This flow is also extremely unintuitive, as the player will definitely drop the sliderend of the first 1 to get to the second 1. I think a more intuitive slider arrangement is ideal here.
17. 02:08:680 (2) - Does not exist at 02:02:680 - so maybe it should be removed or added in one of those places. Seems inconsistent.
18. 02:08:305 (1,1) - These have the same issue as 02:06:618 (1,1) - but can be easier adjusted with just flipping one of them.
19. 02:08:868 (1) - This is... something else. Arguably the only high velocity reverse in the entire map other than 02:11:493 (1) - which is a lot more intuitive, is wildly inconsistent with 02:04:368 (1,1,1,1,1) -
20. 02:09:993 (1,1) - Again the flow of these is questionable.
21. 02:10:649 (1,2,1,2) - Definitely overrepresentative of the sounds. They're not as intense as anything else in this section yet get 1/4 back-and-forths. I think a stream would fit more or something, but not this pattern. The angle this comes out of is also extremely unintuitive and would fit better if the whole pattern were flipped instead. Most players screw up here that I can see.
22. 02:12:055 (1,2) - Would recommend lowering SV significantly as these are not strong sounds at all. 02:12:430 (1) - Should also imo be nerfed SV-wise as it stands out the most here where all it is is a small screech in the background.
23. 02:13:743 (3,1,2) - Also plays unintuitively imo, you need so much velocity to even begin to finish the entirety of 02:14:118 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1) - and this arrangement does not provide that initial speed at all. Would suggest a different arrangement (probably one that has a lot of pull-back movement like this) instead.
24. 02:14:118 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,1,2,1,2) - This is just a little bit overboard I think. It's not representative of the actual intensity here and the movement contradicts the concept of the pattern itself. Seeing as 02:14:118 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - decreases for the same pitch (which it shouldn't) but 02:14:868 (1,2,1,2,1) - doesn't. I think this section really needs to be reconsidered in terms of intensity. 02:17:118 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,1,2,1,2,1) - As well suffers the same problems except the spacing is even higher than before (even though the song is the same intensity as the previous pattern)
25. 02:15:618 (1,2,1,1,2,1,1,2,1,1,2,1) - This is frankly ridiculous, it's a completely new concept that plays so much differently from anything else in this kiai. Not only that but it increases in intensity when the song is constant throughout, the same flaw that 02:14:118 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,1,2,1,2,1) - has. The reading spike this induces is quite high and unexpected and the biggest issue is just how out-of-the-blue this is and unfitting with the map in general.
26. 02:24:149 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - Again while at least this time the pitch/intensity does increase, the spacing is just a bit overdone imo. I think just something like this would fit a lot more and give the same effect.
27. 02:35:868 (1,2,3,4,1) - What is this even following LOL. There's no 1/4 entry here at all and definitely not one strong enough to warrant a 1/8 sliderstream at this spacing. Two 1/4 sliders like before would have been fine.
28. 02:44:305 (2,2) - This.. also doesn't really seem necessary. There's nothing on the reverse at all and there's no real difference in the song on these.
29. 02:48:524 (4,1) - There's been some crazy jumps but this one seems a little excessive.
30. 02:49:555 (1,2,3) - This rhythm doesn't even follow the song, like, at all. The start of this phrase is on 02:49:368 - which is in the previous pattern. 02:49:930 - This is the start of the next phrase but ends on the last note of the phrase of the previous pattern. Basically what I'm saying is if you deleted 02:49:368 (3) - and moved back 02:49:555 (1,2,3) - to that spot it would fit what the song is doing. 02:49:930 - This note also gets zero emphasis despite being fairly prominent and syncopated as it just blends into the previous pattern.
31. 02:50:118 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1) - Mapping all of this melody just to end on the drums at 02:50:868 (1,2,3) - seems a little sudden and a bit odd of a switch. I think that it would make more sense to continue following the melody as the drums are really secondary here, and the melody hits such a peak that gets ignored just to follow the 3/4 drums not even with sliders, but with circles.
32. 02:52:180 (1,2,3) - This sounds no different in the song than 02:51:805 (1,2,3) - so adding 1/8 sliders doesn't really seem all that appropriate.
33. 02:55:930 (1) - This note is overmapped, the melody starts on 02:56:024 - and for a pattern like this it would probably be beneficial to follow exactly what the melody is doing, especially since this is the only overmapped note in this stacked pattern. Apparently it is playable too but introducing this as a concept near the end of the map is a little bit unfair as well as this is very reading-heavy and no stacking like this was ever done before in the map. It feels like another out-of-the-blue addition to the map's already plentiful concepts.
34. 02:57:618 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - This is backwards, in my opinion. The song increases linearly from start to end, but the pattern density decreases from start to end. It would make more sense to start with circles and end with 1/8 sliders than vice versa here.
35. 03:04:555 (1) - Would recommend mapping both of these drums with two circles rather than putting a slider on both then a slider on 03:04:743 (1) - which has only a drum on the head. Umbrella-ing the drums with sliders like this doesn't seem so representative.
36. 03:05:399 (4,1) - Jump feels a little excessive considering barely anything changes about the intensity other than the pitch of the melody. I think a nerf would be appropriate.
37. 03:13:743 (1,2) - This feels awkward and doesn't follow the rhythm of the song here, what would be more accurate is this. This persists throughout this kiai and feels really off especially when there's barely anything on the blue tick there.
38. 03:13:836 (2) - I can get behind a deathstream section but I don't really agree with how much contrast is given between the two phrases. One is basically a stack and one is a cross-screen spaced stream. Contrast is nice but sometimes it can be too much. I think lowering the spaced stream to about 1.0x would be much more appropriate.
39. 03:36:430 (1) - This slider feels very weird as it umbrellas the fade out jingle that the previous patterns were mapping. I think turning this into a 1/4 slider and ending the song here would be sufficient and still quite nice.

1. 01:00:243 (1,1) - This is too obscured.
2. 00:12:618 - This section's sv changes are really unclear, mainly because at first glance it looks like you're lowering sv for the kicks, but then 00:15:243 (3) - should be lower, and 00:17:118 (1,2) - should be too. Basically here the unclarity of concept makes this whole section a pain to read and could be a lot better executed if a more consistent instrument/layer were emphasized with sv changes, as for now it just looks like they're made faster to be the same length and for the pattern which comes at the cost of readability and song expression.
3. 00:59:118 (2,3,4,5,6,1,2) - This part has a drastically lower density and intensity despite being still the same intensity in the song as the other parts. I think a buff is in order here to be consistent with how the other parts are represented.
4. 01:25:930 (5) - If you're gonna follow the melody mainly with this pattern this note is better off removed imo. Same for 01:27:149 (3) -
5. 01:45:618 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1) - Yeah... same as topdiff I really don't see what this is mapped to and it seems quite misrepresentative of the actual buildup which is less the intensity mapped but more a soft buildup to lead into the actual buildup.
6. 02:00:618 (1) - These are fine. 02:09:430 (4,1) - When flow like this gets introduced, it gets questionable. It's quite an unfair gameplay element imo because you can't really be certain how far you have to move to 300 the first slider. Feels kinda rng.
7. 02:26:868 - Again contrast here is a bit much for the slight change in the melody, lowering sv to like 1.3x or something would be more reasonable. I'm also not really a fan of how 02:24:618 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - just sorta maps.. nothing. It's just 1/1 rhythm over the diverse rhythm choices the song is giving you here.
8. 03:02:868 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... this doesn't map anything specific and is really hard to expect. I think actually mapping the melody here would be more representative than this.
9. 03:18:617 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - This is very questionable as well. It's too unrealistic to fully 300 this pattern consistently because the distance to move to 300 the first slider is so unclear. It's also really awkward to hit these if you actually move to try to 300 the first slider. The #1 player on this diff didn't move at all to hit these and got a 300 on some and 100 on others based on the position of the stream after it. It just seems really unclear and the rng aspect of it is the unfair point that I'm making here.

RLC wrote:

Fuck players

Mir wrote:

Apparently those things in winber's diff are SSable just really inconsistently it seems.

Shiguma wrote:

Mir wrote:

Apparently those things in winber's diff are SSable just really inconsistently it seems.

I too make maps to be strictly SS'able and especially complain about parts that play "unfairly" even though they're completely fine!

Sure the map might be overdone but your reasoning is piss poor and it's as if you didn't actually try to understand why the diff was mapped as it was