6th wrote:

Hey!

[Easy]
Woah this is an Easy ? xD I bet that any new player wouldn't get more than 70% on it. I think it is way too dense and too fast, actually I don't get how the SR can be that low. Keep in mind that an Easy diff could be the difficulty a player begins on osu! with. Needs remapping imo. Maybe avoid using 1/2 when the BPM is that fast (or even 1/1), also keep DS high enough to avoid notes to overlap between them. Okay, I'll rename diffs

[Normal]
00:32:358 (2,3) - Slider's leniency seems to ruin the flow a bit. I think that players will probably hit (3) earlier than they should because of that, to avoid it you may want to move (3) down. Okie

[Hard]
00:06:929 (1,2,3) - Forcing the player to hold (2) to play the pattern correctly makes it lack of movement. Maybe use CTRL+G for (2). i doesn't force player to hold 2
00:22:644 (5,1) - Minor, but spacing should be visually higher to have it consistent. at this place spacing changes, and visual spacing too
01:03:644 (4,5) - Spacing variation is too big here, it will surprise hard players. The linear flow makes it even harder to play btw. i like how it looks and i believe it plays well too
01:17:786 (1,2,3) - Considering (1) is "extended", players may think (3) is on white click. You shouldn't fully overlap circles with sliders to improve readability. I'll change it if will be mentioned more. I don't think that this causes readability issue though

[Hyper]
00:10:929 (4) - The flow is rather smooth along the map so that antiflow feels weird.
00:20:073 (4) - Lacks of spacing with (3), unconsistent with 00:20:930 (3,4) - and stuff

[Insane]
00:41:787 (2) - The stack is random and makes the pattern feel clustered, has no point here imo. You can get rid of it. in this section I use this thing to represent difference of the section from previous sections
00:45:787 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - This is confusing actually because you stack 00:46:216 (1) - with 00:46:073 (3) - but there 00:42:930 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - (1) is stacked with (1). It can trick players. These patterns look and play differently, its intended
00:48:358 (1,2,3,1,2,3) - same issue here, this unconsistency is really annoying while playing.
00:51:787 (3) - Use a weird shape like you used to do for that sound please (like 00:56:358 (3) - etc), so it is consistent. I want to have cute blanket here :c
00:59:501 - Why does SV increase here ? Is the song more intense than before ? Not really. its more intense imo, it has background malody which makes it sound differently

Good luck. You too

6th wrote:

i don't have any problem with easy having 1/2 slider, even though, if nominating bn finds this as an issue, I'd rename easy as "normal" and normal as "advanced"

By the way, this should not be the behaviour you want to have as a mapper tbh. If only BN's opinions are revelant then yeah just ask them to mod your map and don't make "random mappers" lose their time...

Uh, I think you took what I said too personally, I didn't want to offense anyone and I care about every opinion. The point is that such thing as "renaming difficulty" is really minor, its something I can change in a second. I'm sorry to make you feel like that, that wasn't my intention

Come[Back]Home wrote:

Easy it is gone :c

* 00:29:215 (4,5,6) - This seems kinda boring tbh, maybe replace (5) with a slider instead?
* 00:36:358 (5,1) - This is too confusing tbh, new players will click way too early cause two circles that close to each other look like you'll have to click faster. you should replace (1) with a slider instead. same here 00:45:501 (6,1) - 00:54:644 (6,1) -
* 01:34:929 (1) - how about you let this slider end here 01:35:501 - and place a circle at 01:35:786 - instead? fits way more the music and is a more fun way to end the map.

Normal

* 00:38:929 (1) - This one is almost out of the playfield which makes it look really weird fixed
* 00:40:072 (4) - This one is touching the hp bar fixed
* 00:42:358 (4) - almost at the same height as the hp bar but its not near it, so I think its ok
* 01:17:786 (1) - why doesnt this one end here 01:18:644 - ? really weird. same with the sliders after that I think it is better as it is now, in before it was like your suggestion, but one person suggested to end it earlier and I think that it is better cause now it ends on sound, which feels more natural imo

advanced

* 00:34:358 (1,2) - almost out of the screen. same here 00:39:215 (2) - but it is not offscreen. 4:3 resolution is also fine
* 01:01:501 (3,1) - almost touching the hp bar but hp bar is from the opposite side of the screen D:
* 01:17:786 (1) - same as in normal

Hard

* 00:22:501 (4,5) -this flows really bad, how about you move (5) a bit lower? makes it flow better 440/368 I think it is not that different from your suggestion + I like this kind of flow
* 00:59:215 (1) - I dont think 1/8 repeat sliders are allowed in Hards, I may be mistaken though hm, why not? they play just like those 1/4
* 01:08:215 (4,5) - this was somehow really uncomfortable to play, how about you move (5) a bit more to the right? kinda same as above, this is pattern which I use sometimes

Insane

some patterns are hard to read, but i guess its fine. reading challenge is intentional, I find it more fun to play this way good diff~ I hope that you meant it, thanks!

squirrelpascals wrote:

Hi, from queue!

do you have a metadata source for this?
insane

• 00:06:073 (2) - make this consistent with the aesthetic you used for 00:10:644 (2) - and 00:15:216 (2) - , etc? This is just a variation of slider shape for this sound that I use througout the whole difficulty. Didn't want to use just roundish because that would be too repetitive. There are plenty of angular sliders for same sounds

• 00:44:073 (2,1) - strange rhythm choice here, it would feel better to have a clickable rhythm on 00:44:358 - to go with the punchy, more aggressive sound. ctrl+g here would work for that well. same here 00:52:930 (1,2,1,2) - My main concern for this section is high-pitched synth which appears from 00:41:216 - , I don't care that much about other sounds

00:47:501 (1,2,1,2) - would sound better going slider, circle, slider, circle instead of the way you have it now because the stronger of these synth notes is at 00:47:787 - and 00:48:216 - To be honest, I don't hear how it is stronger :< + I think sounds in groups of 3 represented better if first and second one has stronger emphasize than third

• 00:54:216 - strong beat, feels weird to have just a reverse arrow over it Yup, made it just like other

Also changed some stuff for consistency: 00:53:787 - there were 2 circles, now a slider, 00:56:644 (1,2,1,2) - made circle-slider-circle-slider instead of slider-circle-sldier-circle + now looks neater

hard

pretty cool, we don't see many cs 2 hards loll

• 00:35:215 (4,1) - having stacking enabled makes these objects touch Fixed

• 00:38:072 (2,3) - this jump looks randomly big Nerfed a bit

• 00:42:929 (3) - i think a ctrl+g on this or replacing it somehow would make all of 00:42:644 (2,3,4) - less stressful to play and create a smoother flow between 00:42:929 (3,4,1) - Hm, but I don't think that its stressful to play, this reverse barely requires any movement

advanced

• 00:10:358 (4) - 00:16:072 (3) - nc here instead, because downbeat Yup

• 00:04:643 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,4) - you repeat this rhythm throughout the entirety of this diff. This rhythm works well but it gets noticeable repetitive, you need to change it up a bit so it's not the same thing over and over.

The problem is you mapped to the loop that the song revolves around. Since this whole rhythm pattern lasts 4 downbeats, try doing something different every other set of 4 downbeats, if that makes sense. Also maybe take advantage of new instruments and when instruments start playing, like at 00:22:929 - 00:41:215 - Reduced density in section without background melody

That's really my only concern xp

normal looks fine
fixed rhythm issue on advanced diff and call me back Thank you for modding! I'll get to gd-guy and then contact you

Naotoshi wrote:

[insane]
00:05:787 (1) - tbh seems weird to have 2 drum finishes on same slider. tho i get why you did it, 00:07:787 (5,6) - you make them both clickable most of the other times. Didn't get the point of this tbh, timestamps lead to different sounds. In first case I use 2 cricles or a slider for variety, for second I use 2 stacked circles only

why do u switch from these curved sliders to red point ones? maybe it's better to keep them both the same to show a greater connection across the map with how you represent that sound. For variety, I think it works quite well. Otherwise roundish shape would be annoying imo

00:41:216 (1,2,1,2) - this rhythm seems subpar, 00:41:501 - there is that high pitched sound here and not 00:41:644 - . i think following that sound is better since it sticks out a lot more, it's quite noticeable compared to the background that you mapped. I mapped to those high-pitched sound actually, but I don't think that their pitch is the most important thing here, I emphasize repetitiveness of those sounds (00:41:216 - 00:41:358 - 00:41:501 - these note are the same as 00:41:644 - 00:41:787 - 00:41:930 - )

00:43:787 (1,2,1,2) - same here, 00:44:073 (2,1) - ctrl g on that seems nicer to me. Same as above, "1-2-3-1-2-3" idea
etc.

01:17:787 (1) - these sound weird because of the slider tick, i think ending on the white tick is better. even though you lose the held aspect having a tick there sounds quite strange Hm, I agree, but how do I fix this? :c Can I put 5% volume green lines on these ticks??

[hard]
tbh same issue with top diff here imo. you don't highlight the higher pitched melody in this 00:41:215 - and i think that detracts from the quality a lot since that is what makes this section unique from the others. But i do highlight it tho o.o Just look at those 1/2 reverses, there weren't a single one in previous sections

other than that the diff is ok

[adv]
definitely consider raising AR to 6-6.5 imo. combined with your heavy use of sliders the number of objects on the screen is quite high overall. stuff like https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/9605806 just seems way too dense for a lower diff like this. yeah, made 7

00:27:694 - how come the density drops so much in this section? Background melody is gone from 00:22:929 - so I think object density drop represents this very well

[normal]
ar 5 at least, maybe 5.5 or 6. note density on lower diffs needs to be lower so that they are easier to read. using reading as a challenge on higher diffs is ok but not on the lowest diff on a set. made ar 5.5, od 4.5, hp 4.5

theres a bunch of random spacing inconsistency / minor overlaps that look weird i guess I went through the diff and didn't notice any to be honest

or stuff like 01:16:644 (4,1) - lo adjusted a bit, it was pretty okay tho, i wouldn't notice in-game o.o

yea overall not too bad, but i dont like the sections where the melody is not highlighted since that is the only part of the song that sticks out to me. It's odd, because that actually was the thought I had in mind while making those sections - to represent that high-pitched melody starting from 00:41:216 - . In insane there are a lot of objects grouped by 3 and I made objects overlap to show that sounds are the samelet me know what you think Thanks for modding, I'll get to gd-guy and then contact you

Come[Back]Home wrote:

tMb's hyper

* 00:27:215 (5) - the pattern would look way better if this slider was the same as 00:26:358 (1) - I use a slider with a red anchor for each such sound.
* 00:42:644 (3,6) - too hard for a hyper imo, its too hard to read. same here 00:47:215 (3,6) - 00:51:786 (3,6) - 00:56:358 (3,6) It's alright I think. Besides, I did AR higher.
* 00:52:786 (2,2,2) - might be too hard because of readabiltiy, but if you stack them, pls stack the sliderends properly, it looks really weird right now Ok, I stacked the sliderends properly.
* 01:10:358 (4) - its touching the hp bar I'm not ready to sacrifice my structure for this.

squirrelpascals wrote:

Hi, from queue!
hyper

• 00:04:929 (3,4) - looks overspaced compared to 00:09:501 (3,4) - or 00:14:072 (3,4) Fixed.

• 00:19:787 (3,4) - this looks like it should actually be spaced more, compared to what you did at 00:15:215 (3,4) - or 00:10:644 (3,4) - Ok, changed.

• 00:38:787 (6,1) - looks like a pretty large jump here, in comparison to the rest of this section LOL, I didn't notice it. Fixed, of cours.

• 00:46:930 (1,2,3,4) - flows pretty awkwardly because of a very quick motion of jumping up toward the slider, following it down, and jumping up again. i think placing 00:47:073 (2) - somewhere above 1 would help solve this and create smoother flow between 00:46:930 (1,2,3) - . suggestion I like you suggestion, thanks. Changed.

• 00:51:644 (2,3) - dont you usually have a jump here? at places like 00:42:501 (2,3) - 00:47:073 (2,3) - Yap, fixed.

• 01:24:644 (1,2) - 01:28:501 (2,3) - 01:30:787 (2,3) - etc. - inconsistent with how you managed the same 1/2 gaps at 01:19:358 (2,3) - 01:20:073 (1,2) - 01:21:644 (2,3) - etc. would rather you just used one of these spacing choices These sliderends is not random. I use it to map BG sounds. I want to highlight it, but I don't want to make it clickable, so I use sliderends for this.
normal looks fine
fixed rhythm issue on advanced diff and call me back

Naotoshi wrote:

[tmb]
imo the ar should be a bit higher, the density is really high in some parts and it seems unfitting. like at 00:11:144 - there are 5 or 6 objects on the screen at the same time. Ok, AR 9 is alright I think.

or like 00:57:715 - where with all the staacking it just sort of becomes a massive cluster fuck of objects

01:19:501 - imo 1/1 slider here, or silence tail, sounds beetter. the extra hitnormal on the overmapped slider end sounds really out of place considering the song is slowing down in terms of density. (From the past reply ^) These sliderends is not random. I use it to map BG sounds. I want to highlight it, but I don't want to make it clickable, so I use sliderends for this.

good diff

yea overall not too bad, but i dont like the sections where the melody is not highlighted since that is the only part of the song that sticks out to me. let me know what you think