I told you, you'd better not call me xD
* 00:04:441 (1,2,3) - Patterns like this are still very unstructured. By unstructured, I mean there are no logical common characteristics that integrate all notes into a pattern. In this example, (2) is on very vague position relative to (1), and the position of (3) is pretty close to (1) while (2) is just standing alone, thus there also lacks spacing consistency. This can be minor itself indeed, but I find that most of your parts are like this and needs to be improved a lot. This is just one example.
* 00:08:672 (3,4) - Like, for example, what if the way of stack was directly heading to 00:08:288 (2) - ? Not like you have to do it, it's just a thing you could consider.
* 00:10:595 (1,2,3,4) - Even this triangle is not perfect. Moreover, it feels strange to have 00:11:364 (3,4) - same spacing as 00:10:980 (2,3) - , because while the sound on 00:10:595 (1,2,3) - were getting more intense, 00:11:749 (4) - actually loses all the intensity. It doesn't feel any same as 00:11:364 (3) - .
* 00:16:749 (1,2,3) - You've never introduced spaced 1/4s until here, and doesn't show this again until next part. Just compare this to 00:17:903 (4,5) - . Actually, the sound of 00:17:326 (2) - is just same as 00:14:249 - , so they should be evenly represented.
* 00:21:172 - Not sure if you really want to skip this beat.
* 00:39:057 (3,4) - 00:42:134 (2,3) - They're in the same part, and there's not much intensity change. Still you changed the spacing of 1/4s a lot. Think how 00:41:364 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - suddenly increased the whole intensity. This continues to 00:44:441 (1,2) - 00:46:749 (5,6) - 00:48:288 (2,3) - as well, but you reverted it back on 00:50:595 (1,2) - when the song actually got more intense.
* 00:51:557 - It's very strange that you ignored a large instrument sound here to follow the vocals, but you did the very opposite on 00:52:326 - to ignore a strong vocal.
* 01:02:903 (1) - I don't get why 01:03:288 - is ignored, while you very closely follow the vocals for the entire part. This is even the very first vocal, isn't this important?
* 01:14:441 (5,6) - You can move these further from (4), it looks very sticky.
* 01:15:788 (2,3) - Please, come up with some patterns that are not ambiguous like this.
* 01:16:557 (4,5,6,7) - 01:24:441 (1,2,3,4) - Sometimes you randomly used these vertical/horizontal patterns. They may be good by themselves, but the problem here is that they just appear randomly, without considering how it works with the rest of the map. Your general mapping style is very soft and round. If there's nothing special in the music to be represented differently, your mapping should also remain the same. A map is an organism. As a collab, you should at least keep your parts as a part of the organism.
* 01:19:634 - Can't really get why this is ignored.
* 01:19:057 (2,3,4,5,6,7) - This pattern is unbalanced, like, so much. And there's another problem. This pattern feels like I'm suddenly playing a different map, because the spacing between notes is significantly different from the previous and the next notes. Look how close the notes between 01:15:211 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - and 01:21:364 (1,2,3,4) - are. I'm not saying you should always fix the DS. I just made a simple example here, hope you get the idea. https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/8565690
* 01:24:057 (5) - This drum is strong, sure. But you're focusing on the vocals in general, and that one note just got out of the track alone, running away from the consistent DS. If you do something like https://doyak.s-ul.eu/DBVgNkbV , then you can make some emphasis on the drum while still keeping (5) under your control.
* 01:30:595 - This part needs more emphasis, definitely.
* 01:33:672 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - This just flows, really. But they don't create any meaningful patterns.
* 01:36:749 (1,2) - 01:38:095 (4,5) - 01:39:057 (6,7,8) - Things like these make the map structure unstable. There is no base distance at all. An important thing here is that you want to emphasis 01:38:288 (5) - , but what you can see is that 01:38:095 (4,5) - are being together, just with a little higher DS than others. If you want to emphasis a certain sound, you need to differentiate it from unrelated notes. If you make a smooth flow between them, it makes them look like a single pattern.
* 01:42:711 (1,4,6) - One important thing that makes a map structured is integrated curves. This is yet another thing you can consider to fill your map with logic. In your map, every sliders except few copy&pasted ones have different curvature. The curved sliders are part of the map, so they all need to be organized. They can't just be exclusive to each other and just be what each of them want to be. Compare these to 01:45:788 (1) - 01:51:941 (1,3) -
* 01:45:788 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - And compare the spacing between these and 01:47:326 (6,7,8,9,10) - .
* 01:53:479 (5,6,7) - And again, it's not like the tension went down or anything even.
* 01:58:095 (1,2) - You only considered the DS value, and not how the spacing actually looks like.
* 02:12:903 (6,7,8) - 02:15:788 (4,5,6,7) - Compare these two. You used same concept twice, but are they really just that same? They have significant difference from each other, thus needs to be represented differently, with different scale.
* 02:17:903 (4,5) - Even on things like this, it's better to make the spacing same as 02:18:864 (6,7) - to make it more structured.
* 02:20:403 - This is same as 02:17:326 (2) - , why do you ignore this
* 02:19:633 (10,1) - And look at this spacing, why is this even smaller than 02:17:903 (4,5) - and 02:18:864 (6,7) - ?
* 02:22:518 (8,1) - This is even an 1/2, with a cymbal sound. But this is similar to 02:16:749 (1,2) - ?
* 02:25:211 (5,6,1) - If you look back, there was 00:22:134 (1,2,3) - that had much smaller spacing.
* 02:48:864 (3,4) - This rhythm seems much better for me. https://doyak.s-ul.eu/HFN1FocD
* 02:52:518 (5) - Also I'd use a 1/4 slider there to not ignore 02:52:711 -
* 03:18:288 (1) - It's very good to finish the rectangle, but I don't think the spacing here works at all. It needs more emphasis than 03:17:518 (5,6,7) - , but what you did here is to slow down the flow suddenly, thus make it very underemphasized. I'd rather try https://doyak.s-ul.eu/ZMTQwNZd (8 under 7), or something else.
* 03:33:672 - Again this needs to be emphasized but the flow is slowed down by the 1/1. Better to fill out 03:33:480 - somehow or just put it far away.
* 03:45:788 (1,3,4) - 03:49:826 (2,3,4,5) - Won't say much thing, same as the previous parts of yours.
* 03:50:980 - Quite important to be ignored imo
* 03:52:134 (1,2,3) - 03:53:480 (4,5,6,7) -
* 03:58:288 (1,2,3,4,5) - This rhythm is better https://doyak.s-ul.eu/rOOb2QwF and if I were you, I'd divide most of the sliders into 1/4s because there are audible sounds and this part is quite intense.
* 04:01:364 (1,2,3) - Why do they only have wide spacing, and then 04:02:326 (4,5,6) - are not? Especially 4 and 6 are really strong.
* 04:03:672 (8) - Both the head and tail sound are very important, better to divide into 2 circles.
* 05:02:326 (9,1) - At least blanket please
* 05:04:249 (6,7,8,9) - 05:06:749 (4,5,6,7) - uhh... won't repeat
* And so on...
@Shurelia: To be honest, you really need to practice to organize your map. Make strong relations between notes within a pattern by applying same concepts such as spacing, curvature, and slider angles, etc. Make similar things similar, and differentiate different things. Each pattern of a map works as an organism, and each patterns needs to create a bigger organism. It's not okay to make an exclusive pattern every time that does not consider the structure. The other collab mappers here are good at it. I know it's hard, but you need more practice.
I don't consider this map to be suitable in ranked section until I see significant improvement on Shurelia's parts.
* 00:04:441 (1,2,3) - Patterns like this are still very unstructured. By unstructured, I mean there are no logical common characteristics that integrate all notes into a pattern. In this example, (2) is on very vague position relative to (1), and the position of (3) is pretty close to (1) while (2) is just standing alone, thus there also lacks spacing consistency. This can be minor itself indeed, but I find that most of your parts are like this and needs to be improved a lot. This is just one example.
* 00:08:672 (3,4) - Like, for example, what if the way of stack was directly heading to 00:08:288 (2) - ? Not like you have to do it, it's just a thing you could consider.
* 00:10:595 (1,2,3,4) - Even this triangle is not perfect. Moreover, it feels strange to have 00:11:364 (3,4) - same spacing as 00:10:980 (2,3) - , because while the sound on 00:10:595 (1,2,3) - were getting more intense, 00:11:749 (4) - actually loses all the intensity. It doesn't feel any same as 00:11:364 (3) - .
* 00:16:749 (1,2,3) - You've never introduced spaced 1/4s until here, and doesn't show this again until next part. Just compare this to 00:17:903 (4,5) - . Actually, the sound of 00:17:326 (2) - is just same as 00:14:249 - , so they should be evenly represented.
* 00:21:172 - Not sure if you really want to skip this beat.
* 00:39:057 (3,4) - 00:42:134 (2,3) - They're in the same part, and there's not much intensity change. Still you changed the spacing of 1/4s a lot. Think how 00:41:364 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - suddenly increased the whole intensity. This continues to 00:44:441 (1,2) - 00:46:749 (5,6) - 00:48:288 (2,3) - as well, but you reverted it back on 00:50:595 (1,2) - when the song actually got more intense.
* 00:51:557 - It's very strange that you ignored a large instrument sound here to follow the vocals, but you did the very opposite on 00:52:326 - to ignore a strong vocal.
* 01:02:903 (1) - I don't get why 01:03:288 - is ignored, while you very closely follow the vocals for the entire part. This is even the very first vocal, isn't this important?
* 01:14:441 (5,6) - You can move these further from (4), it looks very sticky.
* 01:15:788 (2,3) - Please, come up with some patterns that are not ambiguous like this.
* 01:16:557 (4,5,6,7) - 01:24:441 (1,2,3,4) - Sometimes you randomly used these vertical/horizontal patterns. They may be good by themselves, but the problem here is that they just appear randomly, without considering how it works with the rest of the map. Your general mapping style is very soft and round. If there's nothing special in the music to be represented differently, your mapping should also remain the same. A map is an organism. As a collab, you should at least keep your parts as a part of the organism.
* 01:19:634 - Can't really get why this is ignored.
* 01:19:057 (2,3,4,5,6,7) - This pattern is unbalanced, like, so much. And there's another problem. This pattern feels like I'm suddenly playing a different map, because the spacing between notes is significantly different from the previous and the next notes. Look how close the notes between 01:15:211 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - and 01:21:364 (1,2,3,4) - are. I'm not saying you should always fix the DS. I just made a simple example here, hope you get the idea. https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/8565690
* 01:24:057 (5) - This drum is strong, sure. But you're focusing on the vocals in general, and that one note just got out of the track alone, running away from the consistent DS. If you do something like https://doyak.s-ul.eu/DBVgNkbV , then you can make some emphasis on the drum while still keeping (5) under your control.
* 01:30:595 - This part needs more emphasis, definitely.
* 01:33:672 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7) - This just flows, really. But they don't create any meaningful patterns.
* 01:36:749 (1,2) - 01:38:095 (4,5) - 01:39:057 (6,7,8) - Things like these make the map structure unstable. There is no base distance at all. An important thing here is that you want to emphasis 01:38:288 (5) - , but what you can see is that 01:38:095 (4,5) - are being together, just with a little higher DS than others. If you want to emphasis a certain sound, you need to differentiate it from unrelated notes. If you make a smooth flow between them, it makes them look like a single pattern.
* 01:42:711 (1,4,6) - One important thing that makes a map structured is integrated curves. This is yet another thing you can consider to fill your map with logic. In your map, every sliders except few copy&pasted ones have different curvature. The curved sliders are part of the map, so they all need to be organized. They can't just be exclusive to each other and just be what each of them want to be. Compare these to 01:45:788 (1) - 01:51:941 (1,3) -
* 01:45:788 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - And compare the spacing between these and 01:47:326 (6,7,8,9,10) - .
* 01:53:479 (5,6,7) - And again, it's not like the tension went down or anything even.
* 01:58:095 (1,2) - You only considered the DS value, and not how the spacing actually looks like.
* 02:12:903 (6,7,8) - 02:15:788 (4,5,6,7) - Compare these two. You used same concept twice, but are they really just that same? They have significant difference from each other, thus needs to be represented differently, with different scale.
* 02:17:903 (4,5) - Even on things like this, it's better to make the spacing same as 02:18:864 (6,7) - to make it more structured.
* 02:20:403 - This is same as 02:17:326 (2) - , why do you ignore this
* 02:19:633 (10,1) - And look at this spacing, why is this even smaller than 02:17:903 (4,5) - and 02:18:864 (6,7) - ?
* 02:22:518 (8,1) - This is even an 1/2, with a cymbal sound. But this is similar to 02:16:749 (1,2) - ?
* 02:25:211 (5,6,1) - If you look back, there was 00:22:134 (1,2,3) - that had much smaller spacing.
* 02:48:864 (3,4) - This rhythm seems much better for me. https://doyak.s-ul.eu/HFN1FocD
* 02:52:518 (5) - Also I'd use a 1/4 slider there to not ignore 02:52:711 -
* 03:18:288 (1) - It's very good to finish the rectangle, but I don't think the spacing here works at all. It needs more emphasis than 03:17:518 (5,6,7) - , but what you did here is to slow down the flow suddenly, thus make it very underemphasized. I'd rather try https://doyak.s-ul.eu/ZMTQwNZd (8 under 7), or something else.
* 03:33:672 - Again this needs to be emphasized but the flow is slowed down by the 1/1. Better to fill out 03:33:480 - somehow or just put it far away.
* 03:45:788 (1,3,4) - 03:49:826 (2,3,4,5) - Won't say much thing, same as the previous parts of yours.
* 03:50:980 - Quite important to be ignored imo
* 03:52:134 (1,2,3) - 03:53:480 (4,5,6,7) -
* 03:58:288 (1,2,3,4,5) - This rhythm is better https://doyak.s-ul.eu/rOOb2QwF and if I were you, I'd divide most of the sliders into 1/4s because there are audible sounds and this part is quite intense.
* 04:01:364 (1,2,3) - Why do they only have wide spacing, and then 04:02:326 (4,5,6) - are not? Especially 4 and 6 are really strong.
* 04:03:672 (8) - Both the head and tail sound are very important, better to divide into 2 circles.
* 05:02:326 (9,1) - At least blanket please
* 05:04:249 (6,7,8,9) - 05:06:749 (4,5,6,7) - uhh... won't repeat
* And so on...
@Shurelia: To be honest, you really need to practice to organize your map. Make strong relations between notes within a pattern by applying same concepts such as spacing, curvature, and slider angles, etc. Make similar things similar, and differentiate different things. Each pattern of a map works as an organism, and each patterns needs to create a bigger organism. It's not okay to make an exclusive pattern every time that does not consider the structure. The other collab mappers here are good at it. I know it's hard, but you need more practice.
I don't consider this map to be suitable in ranked section until I see significant improvement on Shurelia's parts.