I don't think this is possible to be ranked. overused streams, fix that (even though I know death metal can be mapped in any way, just not THAT much xd)
forum
Irreversible Mechanism - Into the Void
posted
Total Posts
57
xd plsBeer wrote:
I don't think this is possible to be ranked. overused streams, fix that (even though I know death metal can be mapped in any way, just not THAT much xd)
01:09:221 (1,2,3,4) - 01:14:801 (2) - 01:17:681 (2,3,4) - 01:20:501 (1) - 01:22:901 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,1) - 01:37:841 (2,3,4) - 01:40:661 (1,1) - 01:43:061 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3) - 03:39:821 (6,7,8,9,10,11,1) - 04:05:921 (2,3,4) - 04:40:901 (1) - 05:47:061 (5) - 05:54:661 (4,5) - You will want to reconsider your rhythm choices this part. These are the ones that had a weak, or nearly no distinct beat in the song yet got mapped (which I consider overmaps). I see you were expressing some weak beats are an extremely close spaced streams. The thing is, some of those were really weak beats and mapping that way was pretty fine, but the ones I've highlighted here are ones with nearly no beat. Some 1/4 reverse sliders are also in the list, because some 1/4 sliders were having a strong & real beat while the ones I've highlighted here are ones with nearly no beat to get expressed. Mapping the same way didn't felt really great here.
02:20:021 - Personally, a change of pitch wasn't as notable as 02:19:541 which kinda felt apart froom the song. Imo, just using a long slider that starts from 02:19:541 would reflect the song better.
02:35:381 - The sudden switch from 1/3 to 1/4 along a similar looking stream shape doesn't really seem to be properly indicating the rhythm of the pattern.
02:51:701 - The claps at the slider end in this section... I can understand that it fits with the song, but in the viewpoint of hitsounds, since the tail's sound was much stronger than the head, while the prominent rhythm the clicking beats are following something other than drum beats, it really felt weird for me. Mind using some alternative hitsound file, or something?
03:48:101 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12) - I wasn't pretty sure if this is accurate to be 1/4.
04:58:421 (4,1,2,3,4,5) - I'm pretty curious what happened to the patterning and the comboing. It kinda felt broken with the 3 combo cycle.
05:04:181 (1) - The slider concept I'm seeing here is mostly parallels. I'm pretty sure avoiding this overlap would work much better for consistency.
05:11:861 (1) - Parallel at the last part could be better.
I do approve the aesthetic concepts and the structure idea overall, but the map quite feels too excessive for me.
Popping over questionable rhythm choices.
02:20:021 - Personally, a change of pitch wasn't as notable as 02:19:541 which kinda felt apart froom the song. Imo, just using a long slider that starts from 02:19:541 would reflect the song better.
02:35:381 - The sudden switch from 1/3 to 1/4 along a similar looking stream shape doesn't really seem to be properly indicating the rhythm of the pattern.
02:51:701 - The claps at the slider end in this section... I can understand that it fits with the song, but in the viewpoint of hitsounds, since the tail's sound was much stronger than the head, while the prominent rhythm the clicking beats are following something other than drum beats, it really felt weird for me. Mind using some alternative hitsound file, or something?
03:48:101 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12) - I wasn't pretty sure if this is accurate to be 1/4.
04:58:421 (4,1,2,3,4,5) - I'm pretty curious what happened to the patterning and the comboing. It kinda felt broken with the 3 combo cycle.
05:04:181 (1) - The slider concept I'm seeing here is mostly parallels. I'm pretty sure avoiding this overlap would work much better for consistency.
05:11:861 (1) - Parallel at the last part could be better.
I do approve the aesthetic concepts and the structure idea overall, but the map quite feels too excessive for me.
Popping over questionable rhythm choices.
04:36:821 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16) - 04:38:801 (2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - Shouldn't these parts be with more spaced streams, because of the higher pitch again like in 04:32:501 ?
lol ur gay
Good luckMaybe OD10? It's 250bpm for the most part, so why not?
00:00:581 (1) - Why a NC here? I don't think it's strong enough here to justify one, and it's the same change in pitch from 00:00:341 (1,2) -
00:04:421 (1) - Same dealio
00:08:261 (1) - ^
00:16:181 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - This is the same intensity as 00:17:141 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,1) - , so why not make it the same DS?
00:25:301 (9) - NC this because it's a significant pivot and change in the stream. My philosophy is that if the sound is strong enough to warrant a pivot, fold, or change DS, it deserves to have a NC
00:45:701 (5) - I'd assume this is mapped to the guitar saying that there's no drum sound here, but how you structured your streams at this bit would say otherwise. Keep it if you want, but I personally would add 1/2 here, not 1/4/
00:51:701 (1) - This NC seems meaningless imo. No real sound to back it up.
01:19:541 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1) - It would be orgasmic if you made a climbing DS (increases every 5th note by .1) to fit with the gradual intensity raise
01:29:621 (1) - Is the same sound as 01:30:341 (1) - , so why did you give 01:30:341 (1) - a special slider shape?
02:00:821 (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) - Here I suggest changing the direction at 02:01:781 (1) - . It feels like you're moving in teh same direction for a long time, and you change it on a not that is vastly weaker than it (02:02:261 (1) - )
02:20:981 (1,1) - Make this a stream like you did 00:37:541 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25) - . I think it would be amazing. Whenever I get here in the map, I expect streams and I find myself disappointed with what you did.
02:29:621 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,1) - I think this stream looks ugly because of the small angles you give the stream to pivot on, and the extremely sharp ones you give right after. It just looks half-assed and ugly.
03:49:301 (4) - NC this because the sound difference between that an 03:48:821 (1,2,3) - is pretty huge when you hear he stopped hitting the snare.
03:49:541 (1) - Get rid of NC as a follow-up
05:38:261 (3) - This ends on a stronger note than it starts on. Maybe just make them two notes?
00:00:581 (1) - Why a NC here? I don't think it's strong enough here to justify one, and it's the same change in pitch from 00:00:341 (1,2) -
00:04:421 (1) - Same dealio
00:08:261 (1) - ^
00:16:181 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - This is the same intensity as 00:17:141 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,1) - , so why not make it the same DS?
00:25:301 (9) - NC this because it's a significant pivot and change in the stream. My philosophy is that if the sound is strong enough to warrant a pivot, fold, or change DS, it deserves to have a NC
00:45:701 (5) - I'd assume this is mapped to the guitar saying that there's no drum sound here, but how you structured your streams at this bit would say otherwise. Keep it if you want, but I personally would add 1/2 here, not 1/4/
00:51:701 (1) - This NC seems meaningless imo. No real sound to back it up.
01:19:541 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1) - It would be orgasmic if you made a climbing DS (increases every 5th note by .1) to fit with the gradual intensity raise
01:29:621 (1) - Is the same sound as 01:30:341 (1) - , so why did you give 01:30:341 (1) - a special slider shape?
02:00:821 (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) - Here I suggest changing the direction at 02:01:781 (1) - . It feels like you're moving in teh same direction for a long time, and you change it on a not that is vastly weaker than it (02:02:261 (1) - )
02:20:981 (1,1) - Make this a stream like you did 00:37:541 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25) - . I think it would be amazing. Whenever I get here in the map, I expect streams and I find myself disappointed with what you did.
02:29:621 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,1) - I think this stream looks ugly because of the small angles you give the stream to pivot on, and the extremely sharp ones you give right after. It just looks half-assed and ugly.
03:49:301 (4) - NC this because the sound difference between that an 03:48:821 (1,2,3) - is pretty huge when you hear he stopped hitting the snare.
03:49:541 (1) - Get rid of NC as a follow-up
05:38:261 (3) - This ends on a stronger note than it starts on. Maybe just make them two notes?
Topic Starter
01:09:221 (1,2,3,4) - i agree (2) isn't really audible, so i mapped it a bit differently (removed (2) completely)Sonnyc wrote:
01:09:221 (1,2,3,4) - 01:14:801 (2) - 01:17:681 (2,3,4) - 01:20:501 (1) - 01:22:901 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,1) - 01:37:841 (2,3,4) - 01:40:661 (1,1) - 01:43:061 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3) - 03:39:821 (6,7,8,9,10,11,1) - 04:05:921 (2,3,4) - 04:40:901 (1) - 05:47:061 (5) - 05:54:661 (4,5) - You will want to reconsider your rhythm choices this part. These are the ones that had a weak, or nearly no distinct beat in the song yet got mapped (which I consider overmaps). I see you were expressing some weak beats are an extremely close spaced streams. The thing is, some of those were really weak beats and mapping that way was pretty fine, but the ones I've highlighted here are ones with nearly no beat. Some 1/4 reverse sliders are also in the list, because some 1/4 sliders were having a strong & real beat while the ones I've highlighted here are ones with nearly no beat to get expressed. Mapping the same way didn't felt really great here.
02:20:021 - Personally, a change of pitch wasn't as notable as 02:19:541 which kinda felt apart froom the song. Imo, just using a long slider that starts from 02:19:541 would reflect the song better.
02:35:381 - The sudden switch from 1/3 to 1/4 along a similar looking stream shape doesn't really seem to be properly indicating the rhythm of the pattern.
02:51:701 - The claps at the slider end in this section... I can understand that it fits with the song, but in the viewpoint of hitsounds, since the tail's sound was much stronger than the head, while the prominent rhythm the clicking beats are following something other than drum beats, it really felt weird for me. Mind using some alternative hitsound file, or something?
03:48:101 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12) - I wasn't pretty sure if this is accurate to be 1/4.
04:58:421 (4,1,2,3,4,5) - I'm pretty curious what happened to the patterning and the comboing. It kinda felt broken with the 3 combo cycle.
05:04:181 (1) - The slider concept I'm seeing here is mostly parallels. I'm pretty sure avoiding this overlap would work much better for consistency.
05:11:861 (1) - Parallel at the last part could be better.
I do approve the aesthetic concepts and the structure idea overall, but the map quite feels too excessive for me.
Popping over questionable rhythm choices.
01:14:801 (2) - made a reverse 4 note slider instead since it is really silent
01:17:681 (2,3,4) - changed to 1/4 slider
01:20:501 (1) - this one is already a 1/4 slider i'm sure it's fine since only first strong beat is clickable, the rest are ghost notes that aren't clickable
01:22:901 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,1) - made triples with the last blue tick of every white tick being sliderends instead of continuous streams
01:37:841 (2,3,4) - changed to 1/4 slider
01:40:661 (1,1) - same as 01:20 part
01:43:061 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3) - same as 01:22
03:39:821 (6,7,8,9,10,11,1) - added a 1/4 repeat slider on the ghost notes that are barely audible
04:05:921 (2,3,4) - changed to 1/4 slider
04:40:901 (1) - changed
05:47:061 (5) - removed
05:54:661 (4,5) - changed to 1/4 slider ends
02:20:021 - my ears like it better when there's a 3rd slider
02:35:381 - yea this one is hard to sightread, can't really think of a solution though, since the beats are really strong and i want them clickable and spaced at the same time
02:51:701 - true, i actually already have a clap with lower volume on sampleset 7, changed to that
03:48:101 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12) - sounds good to me except the 03:48:101 (1,2,7,8) - ghost notes which might make it sound weird, but they are 1/4
04:58:421 (4,1,2,3,4,5) - i think this one is changed
05:04:181 (1) - did i remap this? i don't remember, but i don't really get what's wrong here lol
05:11:861 (1) - uhh
LOL you're right i fucked this part up big time compared to the last one because the guitar starts earlier (04:33:941 (1) - ) than the drums, fixedWarpdrive wrote:
04:36:821 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16) - 04:38:801 (2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - Shouldn't these parts be with more spaced streams, because of the higher pitch again like in 04:32:501 ?
not many jumps and it's pretty fcable so notelock isn't bound to happen, while acc is hard to keep on od10 vs od9HML wrote:
lol ur gayGood luckMaybe OD10? It's 250bpm for the most part, so why not?
00:00:581 (1) - Why a NC here? I don't think it's strong enough here to justify one, and it's the same change in pitch from 00:00:341 (1,2) -
00:04:421 (1) - Same dealio
00:08:261 (1) - ^
00:16:181 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - This is the same intensity as 00:17:141 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,1) - , so why not make it the same DS?
00:25:301 (9) - NC this because it's a significant pivot and change in the stream. My philosophy is that if the sound is strong enough to warrant a pivot, fold, or change DS, it deserves to have a NC
00:45:701 (5) - I'd assume this is mapped to the guitar saying that there's no drum sound here, but how you structured your streams at this bit would say otherwise. Keep it if you want, but I personally would add 1/2 here, not 1/4/
00:51:701 (1) - This NC seems meaningless imo. No real sound to back it up.
01:19:541 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1) - It would be orgasmic if you made a climbing DS (increases every 5th note by .1) to fit with the gradual intensity raise
01:29:621 (1) - Is the same sound as 01:30:341 (1) - , so why did you give 01:30:341 (1) - a special slider shape?
02:00:821 (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) - Here I suggest changing the direction at 02:01:781 (1) - . It feels like you're moving in teh same direction for a long time, and you change it on a not that is vastly weaker than it (02:02:261 (1) - )
02:20:981 (1,1) - Make this a stream like you did 00:37:541 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25) - . I think it would be amazing. Whenever I get here in the map, I expect streams and I find myself disappointed with what you did.
02:29:621 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,1) - I think this stream looks ugly because of the small angles you give the stream to pivot on, and the extremely sharp ones you give right after. It just looks half-assed and ugly.
03:49:301 (4) - NC this because the sound difference between that an 03:48:821 (1,2,3) - is pretty huge when you hear he stopped hitting the snare.
03:49:541 (1) - Get rid of NC as a follow-up
05:38:261 (3) - This ends on a stronger note than it starts on. Maybe just make them two notes?
00:00:581 (1) - these are subjective i'd say
00:16:181 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - i wanted to make intensity gradually decrease here so it gets less spaced every stream until it settles
00:25:301 (9) - doesn't go with my nc concept here
00:45:701 (5) - yeah guitar
00:51:701 (1) - toms get heavier there
01:19:541 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1) - i didn't make any ds changes only sharp angles on stuff like 01:20:261 (1) - 01:24:581 (1) - because it would be kinda hard if i mapped it a bit too accurately to the song haha
01:29:621 (1) - just aesthetic things
02:00:821 (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) - it goes to both sides randomly seems fine to me?
02:20:981 (1,1) - used to be a stream, but no drums to support it, so i changed to sliders
02:29:621 (1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,1,2,3,4,5,6,1) - looks good to me
03:49:301 (4) - no idea wtf i did here, fixed
05:38:261 (3) - it's different now
you going for rank now?
apparently yes
00:27:461 (11,12) - seems a bit extreme spacing wise with how consistent stuff here it feels unjustified. maybe something like https://i.imgur.com/htNfJPt.jpg could work?
02:11:781 (2) - i don't really get why you decided to map this when you undermap similar stuff in this whole part
02:18:101 (1,2,1) - what's with the splitting of pattern/nc here? sounds more like either it should be one single thing or 02:18:261 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) - also split in groups of 2? at least from how drums sound to me here
02:49:841 (1,1) - snapping like https://i.imgur.com/IrTRsa7.jpg at 02:50:771 - seems more fitting considering people won't click for the spinner anyway you at least get the end on the stronger beat instead of nothing
03:40:421 (2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,6) - even if drums build up here, the contrast seems a bit too huge. just tone second pattern down a bit?
03:51:401 (4,1,2,3) - direction of the stack thing looks a bit weird with the stream shape, consider something like https://i.imgur.com/901HyVm.jpg ?
03:54:821 (1,2,3) - at this spacing, being uneven becomes really noticeable so polishing it a bit would be nice
03:57:221 (1,2) - why is this not split from before 03:56:741 (1,2) - ? seems better with guitar and cymbals
04:00:341 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12) - 04:01:781 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12) - feels overspaced since it's so similar to the ones before which also have guitar spam
04:57:381 (6,1,2) - just somehow get this slightly more spaced for visuals, similar to 04:56:901 (6,1) - would be nice
05:04:181 (1) - not sure but this might count as unclear sliderpath lol, looks kinda easy to mistake for a loop
looks like sonnyc's pop was addressed properly so just let me know when you replied
00:27:461 (11,12) - seems a bit extreme spacing wise with how consistent stuff here it feels unjustified. maybe something like https://i.imgur.com/htNfJPt.jpg could work?
02:11:781 (2) - i don't really get why you decided to map this when you undermap similar stuff in this whole part
02:18:101 (1,2,1) - what's with the splitting of pattern/nc here? sounds more like either it should be one single thing or 02:18:261 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) - also split in groups of 2? at least from how drums sound to me here
02:49:841 (1,1) - snapping like https://i.imgur.com/IrTRsa7.jpg at 02:50:771 - seems more fitting considering people won't click for the spinner anyway you at least get the end on the stronger beat instead of nothing
03:40:421 (2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,6) - even if drums build up here, the contrast seems a bit too huge. just tone second pattern down a bit?
03:51:401 (4,1,2,3) - direction of the stack thing looks a bit weird with the stream shape, consider something like https://i.imgur.com/901HyVm.jpg ?
03:54:821 (1,2,3) - at this spacing, being uneven becomes really noticeable so polishing it a bit would be nice
03:57:221 (1,2) - why is this not split from before 03:56:741 (1,2) - ? seems better with guitar and cymbals
04:00:341 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12) - 04:01:781 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12) - feels overspaced since it's so similar to the ones before which also have guitar spam
04:57:381 (6,1,2) - just somehow get this slightly more spaced for visuals, similar to 04:56:901 (6,1) - would be nice
05:04:181 (1) - not sure but this might count as unclear sliderpath lol, looks kinda easy to mistake for a loop
looks like sonnyc's pop was addressed properly so just let me know when you replied
Topic Starter
00:27:461 (11,12) - okLasse wrote:
apparently yes
00:27:461 (11,12) - seems a bit extreme spacing wise with how consistent stuff here it feels unjustified. maybe something like https://i.imgur.com/htNfJPt.jpg could work?
02:11:781 (2) - i don't really get why you decided to map this when you undermap similar stuff in this whole part
02:18:101 (1,2,1) - what's with the splitting of pattern/nc here? sounds more like either it should be one single thing or 02:18:261 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) - also split in groups of 2? at least from how drums sound to me here
02:49:841 (1,1) - snapping like https://i.imgur.com/IrTRsa7.jpg at 02:50:771 - seems more fitting considering people won't click for the spinner anyway you at least get the end on the stronger beat instead of nothing
03:40:421 (2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,6) - even if drums build up here, the contrast seems a bit too huge. just tone second pattern down a bit?
03:51:401 (4,1,2,3) - direction of the stack thing looks a bit weird with the stream shape, consider something like https://i.imgur.com/901HyVm.jpg ?
03:54:821 (1,2,3) - at this spacing, being uneven becomes really noticeable so polishing it a bit would be nice
03:57:221 (1,2) - why is this not split from before 03:56:741 (1,2) - ? seems better with guitar and cymbals
04:00:341 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12) - 04:01:781 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12) - feels overspaced since it's so similar to the ones before which also have guitar spam
04:57:381 (6,1,2) - just somehow get this slightly more spaced for visuals, similar to 04:56:901 (6,1) - would be nice
05:04:181 (1) - not sure but this might count as unclear sliderpath lol, looks kinda easy to mistake for a loop
looks like sonnyc's pop was addressed properly so just let me know when you replied
02:11:781 (2) - idk i do this randomly 00:47:781 (2) - 00:48:741 (4) - 00:58:341 (4) - 00:58:821 (2) - quite a lot i'll keep that one too
02:18:101 (1,2,1) - oh yea i split all into 2 then
02:49:841 (1,1) - is that even legal, ok i did it
03:40:421 (2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,6) - ok
03:51:401 (4,1,2,3) - i don't like when it's linear i like it when it's sharp like now
03:54:821 (1,2,3) - ok it's round
03:57:221 (1,2) - ok split
04:57:381 (6,1,2) - ok
04:57:381 (6,1,2) - yes hard slider i nerf
also sonnyc reply was https://imgur.com/xCEtOkN
i update later son
yo dude. Could you respond to mods properly? As in, put your response next to the mentioned point in the quote. Effort went into the mods, so the least you could do is reply in a way that is easier to read.
fixed metadata according to https://blood-music.bandcamp.com/album/infinite-fields
pop was properly replied to and things were fixed so this should be good to go again
pop was properly replied to and things were fixed so this should be good to go again
xp kudosu
gj
gj
nut
yo dude. Could you respond to mods properly? As in, put your response next to the mentioned point in the quote. Effort went into the mods, so the least you could do is reply in a way that is easier to read.
yo dude. Could you respond to mods properly? As in, put your response next to the mentioned point in the quote. Effort went into the mods, so the least you could do is reply in a way that is easier to read.
Strategas wrote:
yo dude. Could you respond to mods properly? As in, put your response next to the mentioned point in the quote. Effort went into the mods, so the least you could do is reply in a way that is easier to read.
yo dude. Could you respond to mods properly? As in, put your response next to the mentioned point in the quote. Effort went into the mods, so the least you could do is reply in a way that is easier to read.
Irreversible
oof im a meme now