Deramok wrote:

took me a while to get to it and another while.. like 8 hours to write
note that a lot of points are meant for multiple occasions of the same issue, i merely didn't point out every single one as for once cbb and it would have gotten a tad long that way
also i'm assuming you can handle the terminology and concept explanations from our short exchanges of words before this

wall

1. 1. first off is the entire intro which is to me sitll the worst part of the map solely through the choice of objects already, which makes sense since you did say you dind't really change the part since the last message except if i misunderstood that. i'll try to get the point across with more specific examples this time around. 00:00:304 (3,4,5) - these sliders are a bit of a mush of various sound combinations, yet they all seem kind of the same, making no distiction between the different instruments used. 3 is a filler rhythm that can work for both the 1/2 synth and vocal. 4 is the same kind of slider and covers a downbeat bass and the same synth sound as 3. it stands out a bit for having movement which emphasises the downbeat, at this point i assume you follow the synth thing with these sliders. then 5 happens which covers two seperate synth sounds, uses the same kind of movement through being a back and forth as a downbeat that however doesn't exist on this one. it also covers another vocal which i assume is why this one is in the concept of another filler slider? but if it focused on vocals 4 is out of place for playing the same way as 5, which it is too for the sake of the synth. this kind of rhythm is unclear at best to me, i can't make sense of it unless i go and assume it's just a simplification, which by the build of the rest of the map, i doubt. 00:00:990 (9,10,11,1,2,3,4) - it goes on which things like this where the same sounds are covered in vastly differently conceptuated object choices. like 00:00:904 (8,10) - these vocals are just notes withing a regular burst with 10 not even being backed by a synth sound which makes this a very weird mush of things that don't really belong together and makes it be unenticing to play and look at as a result. then the synth after 11 is completely skipped, seemingly at random. especially so if you then have parts like 00:01:504 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) - that can be understood on their own as having a focus on the synth as it conveys that in a structured and unified way. but having notes on just vocals like the previous 10 kills off even that idea. you can think up how this is another, even stronger yet singular example of the same issue 00:04:933 (1,2,3,4) -. you keep the object choices consistent through this first section, but that doesn't make it a better choice. so what this first part needs, is a clearer division, not an easy task with how the song works, but definitely worthwile
2. 2.the second section has similar issues but it's more apparent on how they could be fixed as in my example via slider usage. another way that can work in the part is to just skip one part of the instrumentals entirely or only including it sequencially whenever called for in unique segments, as you did with the synth already. 00:11:275 (2,3,4) - starts on a vocal and proceeds with two drum beats. a simple way to do this could be just a 1/4 slider plus a note. it differentiates the two elements quite naturally even if it has one of the drums on a slider end. if having a drum on a slider end is not an option for you options like http://puu.sh/x6BNn/d517f63a34.jpg that bridge gaps can work too, though different slider shapes for different occasions might be recommendable, albeit not a necessity. similar structures carry out thoughout this section as well. btw i don't understand why this needs to be a slider 00:20:361 (5) -
3. 3.the main thing to go on about in the next part is yet again a rhythmical one. the first two tripples make it quite apparent how they're on the sharp synth sounds. but then 00:23:104 (8,1) - already skips one but adds a note on the downbeat, which does not contain one instead. so as a result that rhythm that i'm supposed to be following doesn't even come to use, where it's the most interesting. 00:23:104 (8,1,2,3) - actually features two doubles with a left out downbeat. now many will bring the argument of how important that note is because it is said downbeat, i'd differ on that opinion. a downbeat such as this, which doesn't mark any transition with fro example cymbal crashes in other songs, but just a bass kick that comes up every half a meassure is just more of a means to be a metronome and rhythm keeper to the song. it's a supporting element to the melody that is formed by the sharp synth and the other building synth that is still in the background at this point. so skipping the note before it and then mapping the downbeat itself (as part of a tripple stack that muddles said downbeat and the second double together, which to me is also repelling as described earlier) just takes away anything of interest about the part other than the occasional focus shifts of the nature of 00:24:133 (1,2,1,2) - (which btw should have their spacing inverted due to pitches correlating to intensity and thus spacing). furthermore it makes it ambiguous on what is being followed in the first place. the slider usage could be different with that in mind too, but i can appreciate the current usage of them with snares in this part, so i won't outright complain about that. smaller things like 00:27:047 (2,1,2,3,4,1,2,3) - also occur where you start a quint in the middle of what is actually a 6 note burst starting on two which i can only explain by assuming you tried using the same focus shift as with the 2on2 jumps, just that you map the sharp synth anyway, but just starting in the middle of it. also here i appreciate the differentiation on the downbeat, but it's misleading to me anyway because the note itself still plays like the sharp synth notes before it while the same sharp synths after it are what plays differently while they'd logically be the same again, but this is a minor thing.
4. 4. 00:33:047 (1,2,1,2,1) - the spacing on these is messed up especially if you compare it to it's counterpart of 00:35:790 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - by which there 00:36:819 (1) - also doesn't fit in quite well. on the jump parts in general i'll reinforce what others have said already, it lacks a clear structure, or construction rather. a clear structure only makes a part boring if the structure and it's idea and execution are boring, so "structuring them perfectly and accordingly will result in a rather boring map" is not an excuse to me. by which "perfectly and accordingly" is ofc more of an overstatement as things have their leniency if you want to construct them in such a fashion. so this means to work with overarcing shaps and constructions like gradual or constant angle or spacing changes between sections of a pattern or following a geometrical form, reusing positions or connecting each section of a pattern in a certain way that you are free to chose. you somewhat do it with the in- and decrease of spacing of each jump and 00:38:875 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - . what all this does is making the map look more organized, less messy and more enticing to look at. hopefully you get the point.
   all things concidered though, a certain amount is there, but in seperate ways taking 00:33:047 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - as an example; it keeps up a direction of circular back and forth movement with thefirst three pairs (though purple one kind of goes against that already), forming a set of two trinagles the notes alternate between, which is a fairly cool idea, while the descending part is in a less flowy but more crumbling fashion with it's direction changes and forming a thape of two semi-parallel pairs of three again. though the connection between the two is improvable. nice conept.. if they were intentional, which i hope, which however is not seen again in the other iterations in any form. the second pattern has a sort of hexagonal thing going on within it, but it doesn't look to have more to it than that sadly. this puts a dent in the parts coherency with itself and the flow structure as result as well beond the visual aspects. maybe it was pointless to go into detail on those two specific examples to make things clearer, but i tried.
5. 5.00:41:961 (1) - why is this split necessary. especially with 00:41:618 (5,5) - being just regular turning points in a coherent stream it doesn't strike me as a good idea to map a split which goes on the same drum beat, the same cymbals and the same kind of synth climax as the other notes. even if it's the turning point from increasing to decreasing pitches of the synth, this is overemphasised imo and might just as well be a regular, maybe sharp, but definitely coherent stream turn. atm it just looks like you did it that way due to running out of space to the side, which i won't dare accusing you of though as i might be missing any intention, but in that case it would be simple to just move the entire stream and linked objects after it, maybe with a little rotation, to the right since it's a seperated entity from it's surroundings
6. 6.00:48:904 (4,6) - i don't know why these are a thing after you even skip the synths the entire thing. this just takes away from the transitioning vocals you've been building the part around. it just adds some out of place rhythm density.
7. 7.00:50:190 (3) - i'd just use two notes instead as they are two distinct vocals (that aren't even ve syllables). doesn't really increase activity density noticably and even decreases rhythm density if that's a concern of yours. i don't know why you'd use a repeat in the first place either as the end of it doesn't carry any significance aside being.. a filler, which i don't think is fitting with a low density part in either
8. 8.in turn things like 00:50:704 (1,2) - could just be a 1/1 slider for slight alerations of the reasons in the previous point
9. 9. 00:56:533 (1,2,3) - even if you come with the argument of "variety".. this is just overmapped in every sense of the term. there isn't even any of the sharp synths that make up al the 1/4 rhythms in the section on that 2. a simple contrast pattern does the job just as well without overmapping and artificial attention grabbing
10. 10. 00:58:761 (2,3) - a little flow thing; it's nice how 00:54:990 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3) - share a direction and feel like a reiterating unit, which certainly fits with the vocals. but 00:58:590 (1,2,3) - puts that concept to waste as it just breaks the angular momentum in a similar part, which could easily be avoided with something as simple as a turn around in the fashion of http://puu.sh/x6OkF/d0cf6fa81f.jpg , ofc with the minor adjustments of the objects after it
11. 11. 00:59:961 (2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4) - whith these you try to incorporate the sharp synth again, which is a good idea to build up tension again, but it comes off as arbitrary if you shortly after pull things like on 01:01:675 (1,3,7,1,2) - . it is also weird how you remove most of that again in the next part except for some that are overmapped in the same fashion as the one from two points ago. on the part of 01:11:447 (1) - it gets a bit better because they are more recognisable as just fillers between the vocals that are mapped in a clear way on sliders (except for the repeat again01:12:133 (4) - )
12. 12. 01:18:990 (1,2) - could be a tripple since you do focus on the drums a lot as well
13. 13. 01:24:304 (4,1) - should be a tripple since the part exclusively focuses on the drum (good example of a structured pattern btw 01:22:418 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1) - albeit the first one doesn't connect with the latter two and those two only have one reused position connecting them as well, but the splits are comprehensible and have some degree of connection and overall structure, even if it's a basic one)
14. 14. 01:25:161 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3) - two things with this stream aside of the idea of the decreasing angle being interesting if it weren't broken by both of the last ones being straight rather than just the last one. why is the spacing decreasing? it's the same drum hit throughout and the building pitch is increasing rather than decreasing and also doesn't really do anything more special for the last three notes to justify them being highly spaced again in contrast. it's a nice contrast idea, but it doesn't represent the song. secondly 01:25:761 (4,4) - are overmapped
15. 15. 01:28:590 (1,2,3) - the sliders seem like they are starting too early for the electronic sounds. while the first one has a drum supporting it, it becomes apparent with the second one starting on nothing while ending on the sound and also being preceeded by an unmapped one. gonna be hard to cover everything properly on this but the current version doesn't make much sense to me. something like http://puu.sh/x7oMh/0986a57609.jpg comes about the closest to it without skipping instruments, which might be the preferable option nonetheless
16. ? 01:29:961 (1) - this would be a great place for a split stream as the sound you're covering is a momentary one and the the ones you have the burst on continues right over it. on the same note it would make sense to twist 01:30:218 (3,4) - apart from the burst as they're of the same kind and stand out from the ones making up the stream and the current version takes away from taht distinction even more by adding just one note before it.
17. 16. 01:31:904 (5) - why a repeat
18. 17. 01:36:133 (1) - might want to make it into a note plus a 1/3 slider as the 1/3 sound only picks up at where the repeat arrow is now. current version overgoes that and is thus misrepresentative
19. 18. 01:36:990 (2) - either map al of this sound or just skip it. as it is, it's confusing. having that slider there implies you'd follow it only to then not do so one object and a gap later. i see how you want to capture the bass hits on the next 1, but there are better ways to go about it by either filling or skipping the 1/3 thing. skipping is probably the better option as you do so with the following objects as well
20. 01:47:104 (1,2,1,2,3,4,1,2) - a decent way of handling it as is and it's befitting to the map as well. i'll just mention how this would be a good place to use contrasts for future reference as i've seen some other mods have talked about it as well in regard of how just everything has high spacing.
21. 19. 01:50:533 (5) - what makes this more special than the other vocals i wonder. there ought to be something since its a slider, but i don't see it. if it's the the backgrund synth thing that peaks in pitch there, it's still a distinct sound and has no reason to be extended on imo
22. 19. 01:51:047 (7,1) - how about making a slider out of these as they just sort of feel like jump spam atm while they could be emphasising a longer vocal instead. if the down beat is still a concern to you after what i said earlier, i guess that's that.. unfortunate
23. 19. 01:53:275 (3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4) - about all these 1/4 bits in this part.. i can't figure them out. you seem to just throw them in and skip every now and then, differing even within the same sets, and i don't see a system behind it. doesn't really work with consistent vocal sliders either
24. 02:16:590 (6) - would ctrl g for a more rounded flow as it currently breaks momentum and i'm not sure if that is in your interest Momentum and flow on a slow section, with low spacing 175 bpm don't really exist.
25. 02:21:047 (4) - also concider flipping that one on it's straight axis for similar reasons ^, plus i'm giving emphasis to it smh
26. 02:23:961 (9) - 02:25:161 (7) - ?? no matter how many times i listen to it i can't hear any 1/8 and the buzz is omni-present in the part anyway they just feel right on that spots.
27. 02:27:390 (4,5,6,7) - the start of 6 isn't on any particular beat and even less so resembling of 4. you missed a note in between instead of the instrument you usually map through this part though so i assume you might just have have overheard it (also missing one between 02:28:075 (8,1) - which would serve as a good transition as well) damn i really like the pattern but i guess i'll change.
28. 02:28:247 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2) - nice construct but the spacing seems random 02:28:590 (1) - this sound here and 02:29:275 (1) - kinda give of a stronger feeling, thus giving more space for 02:28:761 (2) - , if I would listen to it on 100% speed this sounds stronger than 02:28:418 (2) - , so I kinda made this construct to follow that, feels better imo.
29. 02:30:133 (2,1) - 02:30:818 (2,1) - along with a possible tripple here you could have used some accents on vocals to make this whole build part less stagnant vocals don't feel dominant at all here, and following them would make no sense, since it would be arbitarilly done. Also I don't want triples, wish you didn't listen to the whole song on 25% speed lmao.
30. 02:33:475 (3,4) - ctrl g to actually capture the impact of the snare very sweet, I was wondering for a while how to capture the impact,
    finally found it, or I was too retarded to think of a way, I just knew that the current one is not what I wanted.
31. 02:35:070 (1) - also this one could profit of a simple crtl g as it plays with the same impact as the previous sliders atm it'd become literally unplayable.
32. 02:35:447 (3,4) - changing this into another set of 1/3 sliders would come off as less arbitrary in sound change as you focused those over vocals before as well. especially since the current things plays on sounds that you skipped in the beginning of the very same meassure and you don't have a focus on teh vocals anyway. a change like that could further profit of a removal of 02:35:790 (1) - since the main sound the stream follows starts a tick later in correlation to just those sounds will actually consider this, sounds fun, but I assume it won't work well for the 1/2 tapping rhythm choices.
33. 02:36:475 (1) - different sounds, but it's the same occasion as with the previous set of two repeats. the first one starts too early and shouldn't be a repeat will consider redoing it if I like new version.
34. 02:38:533 (6) - having a gap after this makes this play really weirdly as it does not follow the sounds that make up the foreground 1/4. so the tick after it takes another note. i myself would work around it so current 6 isn't a clickable in either the form of a gap or a slider end (6) catches a really nice note imo, the hihat or whatever it is, that also feels a bit like a vocal. Also ignoring the 1/4 after because its too weak for me too care, and I would have to make a less interactive pattern.
35. 02:43:333 (1,2,3,4) - only three is different in terms of it having a different drum hit on it (also with a vocal on it). one can stay a single as it doesn't have the electro sound but two i'd make into a slider with the same position as current 2, matching up in direction with the other sliders. on top a change of direction on 3, perhaps with a simple ctrl g could give credit to the different hits as well. would just perhaps need some readjusting on the following tripple this could be explained better right. But assuming what you mean, I'll defend the pattern anyways, 02:43:675 (3,4) - follow electronic sounds, since the snare is on (3) it feels like there's no electronic sound, but it certainly feels nice imo, I don't want to defend every single 1/4 kickslider usage,
    its made for the sole reason of making the section/map interactive. Having them on a logical rhythmical order that is nice to hit, like tap kickslider tap kickslider, or tap tap kickslider kickslider like idk. Having stuff like 1 2 2 1 is bad, if its in a 1 2 1 2 or 1 1 2 2 state it makes more sense.
36. 02:49:504 (1,2) - they are completely different sounds from what makes up the rest of the stream and should not connect them along with the surrounding notes into the same entity, certainly not with the same spacing and shape as the following two notes, it's just muddling, which is always unpleasant will remap
37. 03:57:304 (8,1) - i can't imagine a linear split playing well in a map like this , it's unprecedented and nothing about the music is unique enough to call for something like this. a split in general is alright, even if i'd personally still not recommend it, but the way this one is executed is highly disagreeable. wwww finish emphasis
38. 04:00:818 (1,2,3,4,1) - just a curve that is dented by a just about noticable amount oops
39. 04:02:961 (8,1) - the tripples in this part seems pretty random to me. the first one makes sense as the first note isn't an electric one and being on a sliderend with that. but then the second one has an actual note in the same stack. furthermore.. there's so many tripples that are upright skipped while they sounds virtually the same and are not hindered by any other focus you are taking hmm will revisit, seems I did some structural errors here
40. 04:06:990 (1,2,3) - i don't like the repetition of these. they feel spammy. reason being that they completely ignore the vocals that make up the melody except with minor spacing differences if that is even intentional, which doesn't really do much anyway either though since contrast isn't a thing in this part. the sharp electric sounds are also skipped completely and instead a simple, metronome like background kick-snare rhythm is in focus. musically it is highly repetitive. Following the vocals in the usual occasion will result in the maps rhythm not being repetitive fully. So just here I decided to it like that to follow the nature of the songs repetitiveness in this part
41. 04:23:447 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - spacing is not on pitch (mainly just the third pair in each iteration) The following pattern has strong pitches on both red and white tick. I wanted to consistently give them the most spacing, the following pattern 04:37:847 (1,2) - Has a strong pitch on (1). For variety and fun factor, I decided to sometimes not give (1) full emphasis to make new kinds of patterns, as it will be impossible with the way it is without breaking the structure.
    Edit Quote
    

have fun red-walling, hopefully some green can slip in between
ah, and you don't need to mod my other map, i might have one that is more in need of regular mods in the nearish future instead. i'll message you about that if it happens and if you even do tickety stuff

neonat wrote:

Hello

Despondency

00:02:704 (10) - using a circle instead of a slider here, it helps with matching with how the sounds cut short here and leaves a sudden short break in the song. Similarly at 00:08:190 (10) I disagree, its done like that for a filler, and not planning on doing single circles in the first section
00:09:733 (1,2,3) - start the slider at 00:09:733 and the 2 circles at 00:09:904 and 00:09:990 - the voice holds at 00:09:733 while there are 2 independent beats at 00:09:904 and 00:09:990 would coincide better with circles nice idea
00:25:504 (6,7) - could 00:25:675 (7) be shifted more to the left, so that the angle from 00:25:504 (6) is not that acute. Quite often in this section the movement is quite restricted and small, like around 00:26:875 (1,2,1,2) - and that would make things harder to move around I don't find them particularly troubling, seems to work fine for me.
00:32:361 (3) - separate and use 2 circles? 00:32:533 is a strong beat k will do
00:33:218 (2,1) - largest spacing in this pattern, but wouldn't it be more appropriate for the largest spacing to be at 00:33:561 (2,1) - where the peak pitch is at? Like 00:36:305 (2,1) for structural and aesthetical purposes it will be kept on this way. No emphasis is really lost there.
00:43:675 (1) - because of how 00:42:990 (3,4,5,6,7) is angled, the movement to 00:43:675 (1) feels irregular, possibly shift it lower, curve it to face more to the right rather than left for example fixed
02:04:247 (4,5,6) - especially the spacing for 02:04:247 (4,5) - unlike the others with the held vocals the spacing here is the odd one out i'll see what happens when I remap the section
03:15:561 (3) - why finish here rather than 03:15:218 (2) - like 03:13:847 (2) - ? The cymbals don't seem to be heard at 03:15:561 mistake on (2)'s, will take a second look
03:17:618 (1) - 03:28:590 (1) - 03:39:561 (1) - hitsounds for these? oops
04:01:504 (1) - 04:12:475 (1) - 04:23:447 (1) - finish? sure
04:23:790 (1,2,1) - bigger spacing for 04:23:961 (2,1) rather than 04:23:790 (1,2) - match with the peak pitch in the song I will copy paste something at the end of the mod reply.
04:24:647 (2,1,2) - could try to portray the increase in pitch in the song again at 04:24:647 (2,1) with a change in spacing comapred to what is around it, have it bigger than the rest will do
04:26:704 (2,1) - similarly about the spacing, 04:27:218 (1,2,1) - this one actually somewhat shows that, with 04:27:390 (2,1) - bigger than all those around it, albeit just slightly
04:29:447 (2,1) - 04:30:133 (2,1) - 04:32:190 (2,1) - 04:34:933 (2,1) - 04:35:618 (2,1) - ^ etc. yes yes
04:38:533 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - could do some spacing emphasis here for the tune change and increase in song pressure/intensity yeah I could increase spacing a bit.
04:47:961 (5) - 04:53:447 (5) - 04:58:933 (5) - similar to 00:02:704 (10)
04:50:190 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - could be like 05:01:161 (1,2) - starting with sliders matches the vocal in the song disagree, second one has kicks on both sliders.
04:54:990 (1,2,3,4) - similar to 00:09:733 (1,2,3) yeah

All the best

1. 01:14:018 (1,2) - All the other triples in this section, i understand. But this one is definitely overmapped to my ears because i can legit not head any audiable sound on the blue tick. Same with 01:15:390 (1,2,3) -
2. 01:16:590 (8,1) - Dont you think the spacing is quite harsh for such a calm section? On the surrounding parts you have spacing almost similar to this for 1/2 and this, This is 1/4. This could totally be misread. Even the visuals kinda make this look like a 1/2 pattern so yeah
3. 01:24:475 (1) - Dont think you need NC because its not at 01:23:104 (5) - Even tho the cymbal exists at 01:24:475 - but still :eyes:
4. 01:29:161 (4,5) - Try listening to this on 25% , The wubs actually land on 1/3 snap which is at 01:29:390 - 01:29:504 - Same for others like this
5. 01:29:104 (4) - Also you kinda decreased SV quite alot so an NC would help reading that
6. 01:34:075 (1,2,3,4,5) - quite questionable rhythm here because the sound at 01:34:161 - is ignored and instead of that ,01:34:247 - this is mapped
7. 02:35:447 (3,4) - This is also 1/3. Same goes to other patterns like this
8. 04:46:075 (1) - In this whole section you had some NC's like this one which you didnt have in the intro at all so yeah probably make them consistent (?)

DeRandom Otaku wrote:

[Despondency]

1. 01:14:018 (1,2) - All the other triples in this section, i understand. But this one is definitely overmapped to my ears because i can legit not head any audiable sound on the blue tick. Same with 01:15:390 (1,2,3) - It is a bit audible, but since 01:15:390 (1,2,3) - is more audible, I'd rather also keep on the first one for consistency.
2. 01:16:590 (8,1) - Dont you think the spacing is quite harsh for such a calm section? On the surrounding parts you have spacing almost similar to this for 1/2 and this, This is 1/4. This could totally be misread. Even the visuals kinda make this look like a 1/2 pattern so yeah I have faith in people to have rhythmic sense and see it coming and when. Although it maybe a bit overspaced, I think I'll nerf it a bit.
3. 01:24:475 (1) - Dont think you need NC because its not at 01:23:104 (5) - Even tho the cymbal exists at 01:24:475 - but still :eyes: Meeeh, using NC for patterning here. Think it's valid.
4. 01:29:161 (4,5) - Try listening to this on 25% , The wubs actually land on 1/3 snap which is at 01:29:390 - 01:29:504 - Same for others like this Hithats and drums suggest 1/4, so I'd stick with conventional stuff.
5. 01:29:104 (4) - Also you kinda decreased SV quite alot so an NC would help reading that Map is already spammed enough with NC's I'd rather not take unnecessary ones.
6. 01:34:075 (1,2,3,4,5) - quite questionable rhythm here because the sound at 01:34:161 - is ignored and instead of that ,01:34:247 - this is mapped I ignored a pitched sound, and followed the deep wubs, I don't think its necessary to acute that pitch.
7. 02:35:447 (3,4) - This is also 1/3. Same goes to other patterns like this Drums / hithats, I like conventional.
8. 04:46:075 (1) - In this whole section you had some NC's like this one which you didnt have in the intro at all so yeah probably make them consistent (?) right oops

Can't say much about it since its quite above my playing level. Also i believe the overall structure could use some work other than that its a fine map.
Good luck

-Mo- wrote:

- 00:22:418 (4,5,6) - 00:27:904 (4,5,6) - Nazi perfectionist thing but might as well point out I guess. Some of these triples under sliders thing seem to be slightly off. Okay will fix those since you pointed them out.
- 00:36:475 (1,2) - I get that you made 00:36:305 (2,1) to be the largest jump because of the pitch, but I expected 00:36:475 (1,2) to be larger than 00:36:133 (1,2). Doing that would also give the visual impact that this specific combo is at the top of the scale. Applies to everywhere else you did the 1-2 stuff. Check blue... below the quote.
- 00:38:533 - Would be cool to keep doing variable spacing stuff with these. You can keep them parallel to emphasise the background stuff, but it seems underwhelming to throw out the spacing stuff out when you did it just earlier. Because the drums are gpomg here in 1/2 intervals they essentially keep the same intensity throughout, doing some minor changes would not be noticed and would just harm gameplay, having large variable spacing will result in these patterns not being emphasized properly, because they will resemble the patterning without drums too much.
- 02:34:590 (4) - 02:39:904 (3) etc - Might consider NCing the start of the 1/3 stuff just so it's a little more intuitive to read. Think that the player will understand that based on previous patterning in the wub section 01:31:333 (1,2,3,4,5) - although NCing the 1/6 here after a NCed note would make no sense imo, so I think it's fine.

Looks pretty good.

-Mo- wrote:

Recheck stuff

- 01:47:790 (3) - Missing NC I think? Looks like you wanted to do 1-2 stuff again. Actually this was intented because that hit is a snare (which is usually (2) in the part) so I ended up thinking that the 4 sounds are grouped in the song
- 01:57:733 (6) - NCing with 01:56:361 (1) would make it consistent I guess, if you wanted.UN nced the (1) instead, think it's neat
- 04:05:447 (7,8,9) - Could change this now that you're custom stacking 00:25:333 triples things now. Few more in this kiai if you care about them. ohhh
- 02:11:447 (1) - 03:06:304 (9) - Inconsistent NCing. Also personal opinion but I think these would be more fun Ctrl+G'd so it goes in opposite direction of the stream thing. Fixed NCing but imma keep the position because I like the weird budge towards the slider and it's disconnected flow compared to the cursor from it.

Meta stuff: http://alst.net/2015/05/05/arcd0047-popculture-3/ https://soundcloud.com/ama_loli/lost-emotion

NyarkoO wrote:

Holy did this just get bubbled

(Good luck mate!)

Hobbes2 wrote:

If you apply something that repeats, please apply wherever relevant; your map is quite consistent so this might happen a few times.

00:20:361 (5) - would be a lot more interesting as two circles imo, consider the vocal on 00:20:447 - and that these two drums that make up the kickslider are the same intensity anyway. Music does a cool thing to end the stream on blue tick, so you should too! imo anyway not a lot more interesting but w//e I tried it and I liked it even though there's a slight difference between drums.
00:33:047 (1,2) - for this and the next respective jump section, to me 00:33:047 (1,2,1,2) - sound like buildup and 00:33:733 (1,2) - sounds like the most intense part of the music there, so reflecting that via the spacing would be nice. So, build up with 00:33:047 (1,2,1,2) - and have the peak spacing on 00:33:733 (1,2) - which would then go down again, as does the music's intensity. check my reply on initial -Mo- post for that thing, personally the song isn't having a generic buildup, I think that 00:33:561 (2) - spices it up a lot.
01:17:190 (2) - The music puts some emphasis on these blue ticks via the drums, so masking them inside of a triplet comes across as rather underwhelming. cool wording, but I don't understand what do you suggest me to do xd
01:24:475 (1) - I feel like the angles makes this particular note stand out in this jump pattern unfairly, giving a similar angle to 01:23:790 (1) - would be cool. 01:24:475 (1) - personally I think this note is more important, the one you suggest me to make consistent starts the 1-2 patterns so giving it weird angle will make the pattern not so intuitive, while this is a continuation of the patterning so I think it's fine to keep it just here.

The wub section is pretty cool but I think if you had some sort of setup for the 1/4 jumps (like, 01:29:618 (1,2,3,4,1) - is the first in the map and is quite large) it wouldn't feel so sudden for the lack of a better word. If you incorporated some spaced 1/4 in the earlier part of the map you'd have a much healthier gameplay experience tbh. Personally I don't feel like I should slowly show the concept off because it wouldn't be relevant with the song on the same sounds in this section. People will have more trouble on those 1/3 sliders tbh than this. But reduced the spacing slightly anyways since it may be a bit overspaced.

01:31:504 (2,3,4,5) - this is kinda weird to me, cause of the timeline gap between the clickable part of 01:31:904 (5) - and 01:32:190 (1) - makes the polarity weird. Maybe shorten 5 by a reverse and add a circle on the white tick? example: http://puu.sh/yYR1t/192e6010f1.jpg Hm the 01:32:190 (1) - certainly comes out of nowhere in the song and such I tried to portray that awkardness by ending the previous note on an unusual spot (other than the white tick being too weak for me to consider placing something clickable there).
01:32:875 (1,2,1,2,1) - plays kinda weird, the music has a pretty consistent effect throughout but the angles between the 1/4 jumps are quite different (straight line vs. something sharper) Idk it seems like circular motion that leads into a straight line which is mostly comfortable https://i.imgur.com/US6vYqC.png, of course it forces a slight snap but I have no difficulties playing any of those patterns neither have testplayers.
01:37:333 (1) - remove NC and move it to 01:37:504 (2) - ? the new sound grouping starts on the kick, so I tried to differentiate them like that. It is also consistent with 01:38:190 (2) - .
01:47:790 (3) - NC? explained in -Mo- recheck reply.
02:05:104 (2) - maybe place this around 512,175 so that you aren't hitting the back of 3 as you move to it from 2 I like how your option plays but it would negate the emphasis I'm trying to give on the stronger note which is the slider (3). Personally I think this just seems a bit odd in editor but plays almost completely fine.
02:11:104 (6) - perhaps NC? hey i like that
02:12:133 (2) - for a similar reason to 2:05, perhaps an arrange like this would be better - http://puu.sh/yYR9w/bec4df19ac.jpg. It's not really necessary and at this level it doesn't really matter for playability all that much, but I do think it would be an improvement.the weird budge that I'm kinda incorporating I think plays more interestingly on a slow section, having it flow perfectly will just be :weary:, I don't even really feel the weird angle in gameplay strongly, it's just an editor illusion to me xd.
02:28:247 (1) - music is building up in intensity here and reflecting that in the spacing of the jumps would make more sense imo. I'm not really sure what your spacing concept is for this. 02:28:761 (2) - and 02:29:447 (2) - have a synth on them together with some vocals in first pattern while the second just seems like an more intenser phrase which the vocals + synth suggest. The synth has an obvious buildup starting from here 02:29:618 (1) - which was emphasized
02:54:818 (2) - this is different musically from 02:54:304 (1,2,1), so grouping these 02:54:304 (1,2,1) - as a pattern and making 02:54:818 (2) - into a triplet with 02:54:990 (3) - would make more sense Okay so the idea was to group these together 02:54:647 (1,2) - in a 30degree angle as a hint the the song is changing since they both have the same wub. If you noticed the whole section was basically on the same axis (~15 degrees) so by putting these into a 30 degree it transitions really well into a new section based on 30 degree tilted sliders.
03:02:018 (2,1) - if you fully overlap 2 with 1's sliderbody this looks waaaay better Actually made it overlap even less, personally I'm not a fan of sliders fully overlapping the circles However based on the second part slidershapes 03:12:990 (2,1) - I decided to overlap fully since it looks beter /shrug aesthetics are subjective don't judge me xd
03:50:533 - i think this buildup section is undermapping a lot of relevant 1/4. Personally I don't think that they're really that relevant, as for how much the section is intense, mapping with weird 2 stacks and such will be counterproductive to the overall feel of the part and will just result in playing wonky (I tried it out didn't work). The constant 1/2 spams builds really well into the streams later which by following 1/4 stuff it wouldn't be achieved or feel as good.
04:26:190 (1) - really similar to my second point of this mod mhm
04:47:703 (3,4) - ctrl+g here feels a lot better with the vocal chops 04:48:818 (1,2,1,2) - if you're referring to ctrl+g the rhythm, it wouldn't give emphasis to these notes which truly have much more distinct vocals on the blue ticks. For these distinct notes I'd rather reserve the rhythmical irregularity.

ya

Hobbes2 wrote:

01:16:933 (1,2,3) - for stuff like this naturally the emphasis lands on the white tick based on how you mapped it, but musically the blue ticks are what have importance, so when you map it so that the blue ticks are the middle of a triplet instead of having some kind of emphasis via rhythm, etc, it comes across as underwhelming. https://i.imgur.com/eDr4sqS.jpg so you're suggesting such a rhythm? Personally I don't see it as necessary because any emphasis on vocals will be null. The 1/4 spacing I've implemented is emphasis enough, check the movement from the slider into the 2stack.

on a related note, 01:19:333 (3,4) - are missing clap hitsounds I don't hear a snare on 4, but i added a clap on 3.

basically look at this buildup section again and I think you can do a better job of prioritizing rhythm, instead of this generic one half one fourth stuff the music has important claps on some blue ticks that you can base the rhythm around, instead of simplifying it like that I said that I tried, and I guess I will try again (im kinda more experienced rn xd), if I like it (it ends up emphasizing the overall intensity of the section) we can reach a compromise. If I dislike it, i guess I tried.jpg. But i will put effort into trying to make it work.

Faygor wrote:

congrats !!!

Left wrote:

gratz with your first ranked stuff xd