Akareh wrote:

Yeah, I've also noticed the issue with the muzu, but I don't have a clue what's causing it. I'm going to try doing a "clean update" by removing the taiko diffs and uploading, then upload a second time adding them again to the set. Hopefully that will fix it?

Updated with ayy's changes, thanks!

edit: It did not fix it. Now Oni also has this issue. Welp. I'm a n g e r y

Uta wrote:

just a small opinion (insane diff)
01:22:322 (4) - would be cool if this have more emphasize on visual https://i.imgur.com/Sfw1F9h.png did a thing
01:34:322 (6) - the next same part is a 1/8 reverse which is fine i guess ye, not doing anything special here because of rhythm tho, I think it's best for this diff if I keep this one simple

dont kds i guess

1. The piano part at the very beginning uses finishes in a pretty weird manner. Piano there sounds quiter equally for me. For instance, 00:01:510 - sounds the same as 00:02:260 - but the latter one has finish. Or 00:06:010 - is kind of prominent but does not have finish. I'd highly recommend you tro change these into that.
2. Also, clap usage makes little sense to me. Like, 00:21:760 - and 00:21:947 - both use clap but sounds are like way too different. You could use this hitsoundfor placing it for sounds like: 00:20:260 - / 00:21:760 - / 00:23:260 - etc.
3. Check MA it says that a bunch of SB files are unused.
4. Spread is a bit uneven. Like, hard uses 1/2 and sometimes 1/4 but Normal uses 1/1 mostly.

1. 00:14:447 (1,2,3,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - this entire section lacks emphasis. Music for 00:14:447 (1,2,3) - is hardly audible but then its intensity rises gradually and after 00:15:760 (1,2,3,4) - intensity keeps. So the thing is, you're using the same spacing with different instensity. Consider emphasizing stuff. Also, it would be good if you change volume level, like, smaller for 00:14:447 (1,2,3) - and bigger for 00:15:010 (1,2,3,4) - .
2. 00:18:760 (1,2,1,2) - I would suggest to change spacing vice versa that 00:18:760 (1,2) - have smaller spacing and 00:19:135 (1,2) - bigger spacing because sound for latter sounds pretty much like a part peak so it would be logical having bigger spacing for a climax, don't you think so?
3. 00:20:822 - there's no sound to have a clap on it.
4. Just to be clear. You making lower spacing for more prominent sound intentionally? The kiai section. I can undertand if it is some kind of an IDEA but as an aesthetic guy I suffer. x.x
   Though I wanna see a bit more consistency. For instance, at the beginning you make small spacing for that snare 00:44:260 - / 00:45:760 - and big for kick 00:45:010 - but the suddenly change you mind 00:48:010 - . The same for 01:00:010 - .
5. Also, that 01:05:635 (2) - seems extreme, I mean you ain't done symmetrical patterns and this one breaks emphasis so badly.
6. As far as I understand the wub section meant to be "decent" and "aesthetically pleasant" so 01:19:885 (1,2,1,2) - that kinda goes against that idea bc 01:20:260 (1) - this certain slider doesn't correlate with 01:19:885 (1) - . I suggest you to simply ctrl+H that one 01:19:885 (1) - .
7. 01:32:072 (2) - didn't use this kind of slow 1/4 sliders. Consider maybe changing into a double?

1. 00:54:010 (1,2,3,4,5) - they seem to be divided to 00:54:010 (1,2,3) - and 00:54:572 (4,5) - but according to music it is 00:54:010 (1,2) - and 00:54:385 (3,4,5) - . Also spacing makes little sense as this is 00:54:385 (3) - quite prominent sound. Consider changing pattern in a way that 00:54:385 (3,4,5) - are different from 00:54:197 (2) - both aesthetically and spacing wise.
2. 01:07:135 (6,7,8) - I can't hear sound here 01:07:416 - . Also bigger spacing to 01:07:697 (9) - than 01:07:885 (1) - makes 0 sense.
3. 01:35:541 (7) - undermapped snare 01:35:635 - isn't a good idea tbh. Consider making that pattern 01:31:135 (3,4) - instead.
4. 01:41:166 (2,3) - stack went wrong. Move it manually.
5. 01:41:447 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - stream isn't audible. There's only few 1/8 doubles.

1. 00:13:510 (1,1) - 1/1 gap isn't enough to recover.
2. 00:21:947 (4,5,6) - because this is hard there is no need to spam triples, also this one is made manually I can't hear triple there. Consider deleting circle here 00:22:041 - .
3. 00:28:510 (1) - you make big slider for that 1/4 piano slider what you made with 00:22:510 (1,2) - earlier, quite inconsistent.
4. You like make 1/2sliders for 1/1 kick and 1/2 sliders for 1/2 kicks 01:07:510 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3) - which makes little sense to me as music intensity rises but pattern intensity does not. I'd recommend you to put few circles, intead.
5. 01:54:385 (2) - violin goes 1/2, not 1/1. 1/2 reverse, instead?

1. 01:27:572 (2,3,4) - outstanding pattern, It would mislead players bc you didn't use such stacks for the entire diff. Consider avoiding stack there.

Namki wrote:

Hello. o/

I fixed claps in section 20secs in the map

diuS' Arietta

1. 00:14:447 (1,2,3,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - this entire section lacks emphasis. Music for 00:14:447 (1,2,3) - is hardly audible but then its intensity rises gradually and after 00:15:760 (1,2,3,4) - intensity keeps. So the thing is, you're using the same spacing with different instensity. Consider emphasizing stuff. Also, it would be good if you change volume level, like, smaller for 00:14:447 (1,2,3) - and bigger for 00:15:010 (1,2,3,4) - . Yeah u're right. I wouldn't want to change volume because I'd like for hitsounds to be more intuitive, such small changes will justt feel weird imo especially when the pianos don't have a clear objective regularity in tonality.
2. 00:18:760 (1,2,1,2) - I would suggest to change spacing vice versa that 00:18:760 (1,2) - have smaller spacing and 00:19:135 (1,2) - bigger spacing because sound for latter sounds pretty much like a part peak so it would be logical having bigger spacing for a climax, don't you think so? 00:19:135 (1,2) - I personally find these two sounds grouped without the second one having impact so I decided to make them close that way I can establish a contrast and have 00:19:510 (1) - bring a large impact.
3. 00:20:822 - there's no sound to have a clap on it. fixed d
4. Just to be clear. You making lower spacing for more prominent sound intentionally? The kiai section. I can undertand if it is some kind of an IDEA but as an aesthetic guy I suffer. x.x
   Though I wanna see a bit more consistency. For instance, at the beginning you make small spacing for that snare 00:44:260 - / 00:45:760 - and big for kick 00:45:010 - but the suddenly change you mind 00:48:010 - . The same for 01:00:010 - . Actually bigger spacing on kicks is an accident, I simply decided to follow kicks and snares in a similar way but the melody and other aspects of the note are more important, for example 00:49:322 (4,1) - (1) is firstly given here big spacing because it starts a new measure (first downbeat). Another reason to why are those particular notes spaced more is because they didn't come from 2 circles for any contrast to be established therefore a bigger spacing is needed for that emphasis. As for 00:47:635 (2,3,1) - it's because vocals again, there are no distractions in the song and vocals are really straightforward so mapping it similarly to 00:47:072 (3,1) - will make it feel flowy like the song is suggesting.
5. Also, that 01:05:635 (2) - seems extreme, I mean you ain't done symmetrical patterns and this one breaks emphasis so badly. I mean with 2 sliders I cannot do much to emphasize the end of section and loud vocals on 01:05:635 (2) - so I don't see any emphasis broken when this are completely new sounds, 2 sliders being symmetrical doesn't seem like a big deal in a non symmetrical map though, it emphasizes the 2 new sounds by placement too.
6. As far as I understand the wub section meant to be "decent" and "aesthetically pleasant" so 01:19:885 (1,2,1,2) - that kinda goes against that idea bc 01:20:260 (1) - this certain slider doesn't correlate with 01:19:885 (1) - . I suggest you to simply ctrl+H that one 01:19:885 (1) - . ye xd
7. 01:32:072 (2) - didn't use this kind of slow 1/4 sliders. Consider maybe changing into a double? Dunno it seems like a viable variation, it won't cause playability concerns and plays just about like a double except I will avoid doing the same pattern. The emphasis on (1) is important and that is kept.

call me back after I suppose

Namki wrote:

Hello.

General

1. Spread is a bit uneven. Like, hard uses 1/2 and sometimes 1/4 but Normal uses 1/1 mostly. Made some changes.

Normal

1. 01:27:572 (2,3,4) - outstanding pattern, It would mislead players bc you didn't use such stacks for the entire diff. Consider avoiding stack there. Reverted to what I had earlier.

call me back after I suppose

Namki wrote:

Hello.

General

1. The piano part at the very beginning uses finishes in a pretty weird manner. Piano there sounds quiter equally for me. For instance, 00:01:510 - sounds the same as 00:02:260 - but the latter one has finish. Or 00:06:010 - is kind of prominent but does not have finish. I'd highly recommend you tro change these into that. I wanted to spice hitsounds a bit there with voice/pitch differences so the feedback wasn't just whistles or finishes for like 20 secs. Updated using your finish, since it sounds a bit different but I guess it's softer so it doesn't stand out so much. Mari wants to use his own hitsounding tho, so only applied to NHI.
2. Also, clap usage makes little sense to me. Like, 00:21:760 - and 00:21:947 - both use clap but sounds are like way too different. You could use this hitsoundfor placing it for sounds like: 00:20:260 - / 00:21:760 - / 00:23:260 - etc. ye,
   fixed for NHI
3. Check MA it says that a bunch of SB files are unused. MA doesn't give me any warnings about SB elements, maybe you have an older version of the map? Mari and I fixed some of these things a few weeks ago.
4. Spread is a bit uneven. Like, hard uses 1/2 and sometimes 1/4 but Normal uses 1/1 mostly. I don't think the jump is really huge, tbh,
   but anyway told lancer to add some more 1/2s to his diff so that the spread is a bit cleaner.

Insane

1. 00:54:010 (1,2,3,4,5) - they seem to be divided to 00:54:010 (1,2,3) - and 00:54:572 (4,5) - but according to music it is 00:54:010 (1,2) - and 00:54:385 (3,4,5) - . Also spacing makes little sense as this is 00:54:385 (3) - quite prominent sound. Consider changing pattern in a way that 00:54:385 (3,4,5) - are different from 00:54:197 (2) - both aesthetically and spacing wise. to me, the biggest emphasis in the strings is at 00:54:385 (3,4) -, but I guess I can space 3 a bit further from 2, sure.
2. 01:07:135 (6,7,8) - I can't hear sound here 01:07:416 - . Also bigger spacing to 01:07:697 (9) - than 01:07:885 (1) - makes 0 sense. fixed both
3. 01:35:541 (7) - undermapped snare 01:35:635 - isn't a good idea tbh. Consider making that pattern 01:31:135 (3,4) - instead. can't do 01:31:135 (3,4) - since 01:35:260 (6) - holds here, but I made the snare clickable.
4. 01:41:166 (2,3) - stack went wrong. Move it manually. I¡m not good at manual stacks but... fixed?
5. 01:41:447 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - stream isn't audible. There's only few 1/8 doubles. it's simplified rhythm, and it plays a lot better than a long slider there would, so I'd like to keep this, sorry.

Hard

1. 00:13:510 (1,1) - 1/1 gap isn't enough to recover. made it like the one in normal, but I think it was fine tbh
2. 00:21:947 (4,5,6) - because this is hard there is no need to spam triples, also this one is made manually I can't hear triple there. Consider deleting circle here 00:22:041 - . oke
3. 00:28:510 (1) - you make big slider for that 1/4 piano slider what you made with 00:22:510 (1,2) - earlier, quite inconsistent. Intentional,
   I want to reduce the density since the song is calming down, piano also sounds softer here than before so it wouldn't make much sense imo to keep following it here.
4. You like make 1/2sliders for 1/1 kick and 1/2 sliders for 1/2 kicks 01:07:510 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3) - which makes little sense to me as music intensity rises but pattern intensity does not. I'd recommend you to put few circles, intead. turned 01:09:010 (1) - into 2 circles
5. 01:54:385 (2) - violin goes 1/2, not 1/1. 1/2 reverse, instead?oke

Namki wrote:

круто

Namki wrote:

круто

Stefan wrote:

I don't write in vodka

Hula wrote:

The top end diff is really disappointing, full of gimmicky patterns which are not good to play.

Your set would have been so much better off with your diff being the top diff, since it plays so much better.