Garden wrote:

[Knospe]

1. 个人感觉ar9.3高了，spacing不突出的情况下这个bpm不超过9.2比较舒服 可以
2. 00:28:969 (5) - NC? 好
3. 01:18:860 (1,2,3) - 01:19:513 (1,2,3) - 我觉得这两组间距逐渐增大来跟背景里明显上升的音调更有表现力，而且相较于前面类似感觉的梗好像这里整体间距忽然小了不少, 后面的kiai里同样的地方也是 我试了下 不过感觉不太好改.
4. 02:07:937 (7,8,1) - 感觉弄成跟前面两组三连一样的形状比较有整体感 好
5. 02:21:388 (2) - 全diff里这样加note的好像就这里没有stack在下一个物件上有点突兀，总觉得这里不合适这样的梗，不如直接删了，滑条之间加点间距 可以
6. 03:31:578 (3) - NC? 好
7. 04:09:730 (2,3,4) - 2->3比起1->2间距明显变小，可能容易被当成1/4直接打快了？改成和前面一样了
8. 04:34:187 (1) - 这滑条特征太鲜明第一遍打就感觉到好像前面差不多位置出现了个差不多的滑条，或许考虑换个形状角度什么的。。这个感觉还好吧..我翻了下也没看到一样感觉的...

VenixPL wrote:

random mod

00:10:382 (13) - nc plz
00:15:192 (3,1) - move to left
00:27:013 (4,5,6,7) - correct spacing plz fixed
01:10:382 (9) - nc
01:54:730 (4,5,6,7) - move to slider start on purpose
02:06:632 (3) - non rythm slider lol
03:35:980 (6) - nc
04:39:730 (2) - move

nice meme

Kencho wrote:

• Black is Personal comments.
  Bold Black is Highly recommended to fix.
  Red is Unrankable that you should fix.

[General]

1. Unused hitsounds:
   soft-sliderslide3.wav fixed

[Knospe]

1. 00:23:426 (4,5,6,7) - 雖然我個人不喜歡鈍角，但如果要放的話也放點幾何圖形吧，比如這個放成八角形的其中四個的也可以 4位置改了下，调了下DS
2. 00:55:056 (1) - 在這五角星裡面這個看上去歪了还好吧...
3. 01:55:708 (3,4) - 間距有點太近了，看上去像是1/4，參考01:57:665 (1,2) - 就知道了ok
4. 02:12:502 (1,2,3,4,5) - 我個人是建議堆疊的方式放成像一點段副歌前的那樣，123不疊然後45疊 可以，顺便调了下位置
5. 03:15:110 (1,2,3,1,2,1,2) - 這個真是不太好打，我寧可NC的那裡間距大一點，然後用銳角其实我觉得还好..不过还是改了
6. 03:32:882 (5) - NC
7. 03:56:523 (2,3,4) - 04:01:904 (4,5,6) - 這種我知道你想放的是平行的三個圓圈，但我怎麼看都覺得是手擺的（強迫症），這種東西要先複製貼上前兩個圓圈一次然後才能得到第三個圓圈的準確位。截圖裡面，246是原本的三個圓圈，35是複製24的兩個圓圈，然後把35移到4的位置，就可以知道6的準確位置了，然後把6移到5的位置，再刪掉35。 强迫症没救hh
   
   SPOILER

   
8. 04:05:491 (5) - NC ok
9. 04:13:643 (2) - 為什麼這個要用1/1折返呢，忽略了很多音啊，而且我覺得即使要放1/1折返也應該這樣放这里其实和前面一样啦...
   
   SPOILER

   
10. 04:25:708 (1,2,3) - 用複製的來做平行 ok
11. 04:28:969 (5,1) - NC應該互換一下 ok
12. 04:29:295 (1) - 上面有說的問題 ^
13. 04:32:556 (1,3) - NC互換 ok
14. 04:39:730 (2) - 不知道為何要堆疊，不如你ctrl+G一下更好 ok
15. 04:39:730 (2) - NC ??? ???

Call me back when you are ready!

sahuang wrote:

[General]

1. epilepsy warning强烈建议勾选，因为比如从00:52:447 - 到00:55:056 - 还是有很多flashing的，打图有点晃眼...ok
   app图为什么od那么低，不考虑8-9？ od888

[Knospe]

1. 00:23:426 (4,5,6,7,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8) - 这边分组不对啊，首先00:23:915 (7) - 没鼓，不应该和其他圈一样被emphasise，其次00:23:752 (6,7,1,2) - 一组，00:24:404 (3,4,5,6) - 一组，00:23:426 (4,5) - 是属于vocal的。ok
   感觉这边00:23:915 (7) - 需要删了，00:23:752 (6,1) - swap NC。此外00:24:975 (7) - 既然map了为什么00:24:322 - 忽略了？不忽略不太好打...
2. 00:27:665 (1,2) - 为什么要红点，四个圆弧好看多了..ok
3. 00:33:697 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1) - 这边应该00:34:187 (2,2,2,2) - 这四个NC，其他的不要 ok
4. 00:31:578 (6,1) - 00:32:556 (1,2) - 00:33:534 (3,1) - swap NC...这一块应该重音NC，你现在全部是红线，打起来就感觉很奇怪，而且其实可以12341234，不需要spam...12341234
5. 00:39:730 (2,3,4) - DS怎么突然那么小？
6. 00:40:871 (2,3) - 然后又突然那么大，00:41:034 (3,4) - 这边又那么小，事实上按照音乐00:41:034 (3,4) - 这边才需要强调，需要一个跳，前面00:40:708 (1,2,3) - 应该保持近似DS。感觉打起来好像没啥问题..其实是我挺喜欢这个梗的 不要打我
7. 00:45:600 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) - 你看这边你就没NC...前面那边太奇怪
8. 00:45:600 (1) - 去掉NC然后00:45:926 (3,7) - NC ok
   后面的NC问题我就不一一指出了，感觉很多地方有点随意
9. 00:51:795 (6,7) - 换个位置？毕竟00:50:817 (3,4,5) - 这样过来的 还是现在这样感觉比较好打..?
10. 01:53:752 (1,3) - 可以包好一点 ok
11. 02:04:187 (2,3,1,2) - 02:04:839 (3,1,2,3) - 还是说一下吧，这边不是3个一组，而是4个3个一组好像好读一点..
12. 02:39:404 (1,2) - 做成一样？ok
13. 03:04:839 (4,5,6,7,1,2,3,4) - 这边太难了点吧？03:05:328 (7,1) - 突然的大间距但是好像音乐也没啥很大变化 ]^不要打我ww
14. 03:44:621 (1,2) - 对称一点吧，这blanket ok
15. 03:51:958 (4,1) - stack？这样可以体现03:52:284 (6,1) - 的跳 恩..不过我移动的是前面的5个note...
16. 03:53:752 (1,2,3) - 建议做成和03:53:100 (1,2,3) - 一样 这里我是有考虑过的..后面3连stack比较好..
17. 04:07:937 (1) - cancel NC ok
18. 04:52:610 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13) - 。。？？为什么不做个stream。。我感觉这里还是放原地stream比较好..

做的蛮好的，kiai打起来很好玩，不过很多地方我个人不是很喜欢，所以说继续加油啦

Lasse wrote:

lol that diffname
I mean it makes sense so feel free to keep it, but why use the German translation of the song name? lol,just look "Knospe" is fine,someone told me that how to set a diffname "put your songs title to google translate and choice a language randomly".
[]
your bg is really low quality with lots of jpeg artifacts, here's a much better one:
http://puu.sh/tMFzz/0a0aedb6c4.jpg
(seems like the sb doesn't use that image anyways, so just replacing the sb/bg.jpg file should be fine) wow, i forget osu support 1080p bg now,but i dont know it will make my map touch the limitation of osz file's size?

some of the sb images like all of the /cg ones have similar issues, but idk how possible it is to get better quality versions of them...
they seem like they were compressed way too much ^
[]
00:01:578 (1) - shouldn't this have a finish? finish maybe to loud here so i choose wistle substitute finish
00:10:464 (14) - think it would be much nicer if this was deleted, it's doesn't realyl seem supported by the song and having nothing here would give much better emphasis for the vocal on 00:10:382 (13) - ok
00:21:062 (2) - is this really needed? somethng like http://i.imgur.com/V5oLuQ2.jpg might work much better deleted 1 and 2
00:21:469 (3) - what is this following, you start it on a vocal, but then ignore vocal on the red tick? since 00:22:284 (1,2,3) - map vocals, you should probably do it here too ok, i did some adjust
00:54:730 (4,5) - don't think suddenly stacking this fits with how you build up pressure before :c some spacing would be great // 02:12:991 (4,5) - similar this stacking is in order to emphasize 00:55:056 (1) - imo

01:02:719 (8,1) - similar problem with stack here cause you never do emphasis like that in this part, maybe try moving 8 like stacking it on 01:01:578 (1) - tail for example? http://i.imgur.com/X8IPtFe.jpg // 02:18:371 (4,1) - maybe could so something like http://i.imgur.com/y46yfCZ.jpg here ? // 04:36:632 (3,1) - maybe http://i.imgur.com/1atpqjT.jpg ? ok
01:04:676 - did you consider a rhythm like http://i.imgur.com/403NBYL.jpg here? think that makes more sense ok
01:11:197 - can you not skip this, it seems so unfitting to randmly ignore nearly everything the song does // 02:29:295 (2) - 04:29:295 (2) - 04:29:295 (2) - 04:13:643 (2) - hmm it's work fine? imo
01:23:752 (1) - really easy to mistake for 1/2 gap cause you never used such 3/4 slider spacing things, maybe do http://i.imgur.com/oyt9rOF.jpg instead to make it more clear with spacing? ok
01:39:241 - why is this not mapped when 00:20:980 - is the same but mapped? removed
01:54:730 (4,5,6,7,1) - I get what this is supposed to do, but I think it doesn't work well. they overlap so much so people will just aim in the middle of the stack and play it normally, giving no special emphasis to 1, it just looks weird and you also never do it anywhere else. I'd just stack them normally ok
02:26:687 (2,3) - similar stacking thing, they just don't work well because you also often use stacks that end on weak sounds and having both doesn't make much sense fixed
02:40:056 (3,4,5) - this overmap doesn't make any sense, it doesn't even emphasize anything, just puts random pressure on red tick and doesn't match the song ok
03:56:197 (5,6,1) - so you have whistles on "things" before, but no whistles for the piano triple? think reducing whistles in this part a bit but adding them here would be great // 03:57:013 (1) - 04:04:187 - ok
04:25:708 (1,2,3) - seems like this was supposed to have even spacing but autostacking ruined it http://i.imgur.com/9i5cXt5.jpg, could move 2 a bit to fix fixed
[]
fine map overall, but I hope you can fix some rhythm and emphasis things before asking me to recheck this

Cherry Blossom wrote:

Because i want to, it's never too late.
Hello pururut long time no see :3

Knospe

1. 00:15:600 (3,4) - in order to make the movement more fluid, it would be better if you move (4) a bit further than (3), the low distance between them when there is a higher distance before looks a little unnatural to play.adjust (3)'s position
2. 00:40:382 (4,5,6,1,2) - The same idea as ^ goes for this too, it will be better if there is a longer distance between these objects to make the jump between 00:40:871 (2,3) - less surprising, and more comfortable to play, according to what you did before with your sliders here 00:39:404 (1,2,3) - ok
3. 00:43:969 (3,4) - The low distance between them looks a little clunky compared to 00:44:621 (1,2) -. There is no real difference in the song concerning intensity to justify a spacing difference. It will give a better impression if there is a higher distance between 00:44:295 (4,1) - ok
4. 00:52:447 (1,2,3) - The song is really intense here, but the distance between these objects is low and that's disappointing a bit, i know you can make more spaced things in order to show the real impact of the song, there should be a higher distance between these objects ok
5. 01:42:339 (2,3,4,5) - Here the distance between objects is not really the same, and it looks a little clunky, i'm pretty sure you didn't make it intentionally. Better fixing the distance between them.fixed
6. 02:22:447 (1,2,3) - This pattern would look better if there was the same distance between reach circles from this triangle, and it would be also more fluid, so more comfortable to play.fixed
7. 03:27:991 (2) - I looks a little sad that you didn't made the red tick here 03:28:154 - played by a note to emphasize the strong guitar note, it should be really played to give a better impression like you did here for example 03:33:371 (2,3,4) - lol dont sad , i edit it
8. 04:26:360 (1,2,3,4) - Same thing as i said for 00:52:447 (1,2,3) -, this is one of the most intense part of the song, but the way you mapped it doesn't really show the real impact of the song, and there should be a higher distance between objects, especially between 04:26:360 (1,2) - ok

Good luck Pururut, this must be ranked !