strager wrote:

General
Move the background down so the blue touches the bottom of the screen. I think it's fine; it would look pretty strange if you push the whole image down. I don't know, though, maybe I'll try it out if another requests for this.

Normal
00:21:79 (9) - Looks slightly off place from under 00:20:83 (8). Replace. Yeah, I know, but I think fixing this is pretty pointless as they'll stack either way.
00:28:75 (5,6,7,8) - These are a bit difficult when stacked (hard to notice for a not-too-experienced player). Acceptable as-is though. It was thought it was perfectly fine as-is, so... ;P
01:32:81 (9) - Make longer 1/2 a beat? I can see what you're saying here, but I think I'd better leave it alone, since the ends are almost a mirror of the y-axis.

Hard
00:10:75 (7) - Move over the end of (8). Yeah, yeah! I'll fix this... eventually...
01:59:93 (1) - Slider looks ugly compared to the rest of the nice sliders. I thought about changing this, too.
02:06:41 (7,15,7,14,16,...) - Why not add some hit circles to match the claps? Purely a style opinion, though.
02:18:65 (17) - Move with next combo? I don't follow. Do you mean to make 17 a new combo/color ?
02:30:89 (1) - This threw me off ... very unexpected. Delete? ><
IMO the rest of the song should be mapped for this difficulty, too. ?

Derekku Chan wrote:

[Normal]
***Maybe turn down circle size a notch? The circles are HUGE for a normal map :/ It's mainly personal preference, really. I think it's perfect, anyway. :/

Other than that, nothing stuck out.


[Hard]
***Again, turn circle size down a notch. Same concept as above.

00:16:03 (1) - I would either make this a new combo or attach it to the last one. What about 00:00:43 (1) , 00:04:51 (1) , 00:08:35 (1) , 00:12:19 (1) with all them pickups. I don't think so.
00:16:27 (2) - Then make this one the new combo. =) No, =)
00:18:19 (10) - New combo No.
00:22:03 (8) - ^ No.
00:23:95 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16) - For this boom/clapping pattern, I would either have combos 1-8 and 1-8, or 1-4 four times. I guess it's fine that it's spaced closer than the first part of the song, but a few of the notes should be spaced better imo. It's a little messy, but it also gives it a snake-like feel, which is nice. tl;dr - The spacing is okay. Spacing is fine as well as combo.
00:39:31 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19) - Add some new combos. Maybe on (6), (11), and (16)? No.
00:58:51 (7) - New combo No.
01:06:19 (9) - ^ No.
01:13:87 (9) - ^ No.
01:19:61 (4) - ^ No.
01:20:81 (69) - Why is this so far away from (58)? 'cuz I made it that way.
01:22:25 (12) - New combo No.
01:27:29 (4) - ^ No.
01:28:49 (47) - Why is this far away form (36)? 'cuz I made it that way.
01:29:93 (3) - I don't like this so close to (2) unless you stack them Too bad.
01:31:85 (7) - ^ But with (6) Too bad.


Had to stop here for now, but I'll finish later. *star*

buraimaster1234 wrote:

Okay. Is it about time to even consider rank ??

James2250 wrote:

hard:
00:25:39 (7) - stack this under fading 5? Honestly, I think this is fine, but if somebody can back up and support this, I will consider change.
00:42:43 (17) - people normally dont like off screen/grid notes What ??
00:42:79 (19) - combo is a bit long.. Denied.
01:22:25 (12) - new combo? Done.
01:29:93 (3) - stack under 2? looks odd as it is You no like? Anyway, I changed it. See if that's any better.
01:50:33 (9) - new combo Denied.
02:07:37 (8) - ^ Done.
02:15:05 (8) - ^ Done.
02:22:97 (10) - ^ Done.
02:33:29 (1) - move slightly more on screen? What ??

overall I think your combo's go pretty high when there isnt a big reason for it... Okay, I now realize that, and I change. Normally, Combos will be accounted for every 2 measures. Some areas maybe special cases such as trying to not go over a count of 20 and stuff.
good luck getting this ranked Thank you!
*star* ^

Layola wrote:

Hard:
00:25:39 (7) - Stack under fading 5. Looks ugly the way it is now. Okay, I guess you're right.
00:24:91 (5,9.13) - I would put new combos on these. I dislike long combo patterns and it just looks better IMO. D: I'll do 9, but not 5 or 13. I also did 4 of the next combo to make more consistent, and I moved those 3 notes farther away from (3).
00:40:27 (6,11,16) - ^ Sorry, but not here.
00:47:47 (1) to 01:28:97 (9) - I think the claps are a bit overused and don't sound too good. I don't know. Before, I had too much finishes. I'd like more input on this matter, first, before I make any more changes.
01:50:33 (9) - New combo. Since it sounds the same as the previous combo, I don't think it should be part of it. Hope that made sense >_<! No, I have a method here. The first combo goes 8 beats then 4 beats, 4 beats, 2 beats, 2 beats, 2 beats, 2 beats.
01:53:21 (7) - ^ ^
01:55:13 (6) - ^^
02:10:01 (7) - Stack under fading 5. Doesn't look ugly; just thought it would play better. Probably move the 6 over to the right a bit to prevent spacing problems. Hmm... I thought about that before. Yeah, it should be like that now that I think about it.
03:03:29 (1) to 03:04:97 (7) - So harsh ! Umm... thank you? lol Anyway, I changed combos here, so they start 1 note after a finish.

Layola wrote:

I read the previous posts about the circle size and I have to agree with them. I think it would be better if on both difficulties the circle size was 1 tick smaller. You probably won't listen, but just wanted to put it out there. Oh, I thought I did that before. I guess I forgot. Anyway, I changed.

1. The Ranking Criteria got more strict when it comes to difficulty spread. You can read about the standards in this post: p/3463655
   Basically, what you should do is rename 'Normal' to 'Hard' and rename 'Hard' to 'Insane' for multiple reasons. Both diffs include gameplay elements that are not suitable for their current difficulty name:
   Normal - includes 1/4, lots of consecutive 1/2-circles, inconsistent spacing etc. Also, it's currently above 2.0 star rating which is unrankable for the lowest diff
   Hard - includes big jump patterns with small circle size
   Then, you will have to map a new 'Normal' difficulty to complete the spread. When doing that, try to follow the criteria mentioned in p3n's post I linked above.
2. Place a Preview Point (under 'Timing') to define a start point for the Preview you can hear in the song select or when clicking the picture in the song listing. A good place would be 02:03:292 -
3. Please use the recommended file for all silenced hitsounds, such as normal-hitnormal2, soft-sliderslide etc
4. Using sliderslide hitsounds to cover claps is unrankable, using slidertick hitsounds for the same purpose is highly discouraged. Hitsounds should give feedback to the player, so it is weird to hear them when you don't expect them, especially loud sliderslide / slidertick hitsounds. I would recommend you to delete normal-sliderslide2, normal-slidertick2, soft-slidertick, soft-slidertick2 (and delete unnecessary inherited sections afterwards). If you really want to have clap hitsounds on some notes, map to them, otherwise leave it without a hitsound, it doesn't sound bad!
5. It's not allowed to use inherited sections with volume <5%. Please just use 5% instead of 0%, it is not a big difference. (Applies for both diffs)
6. normal-hitclap2 is unused and should be removed from the folder.
7. The Artist should be 'livetune'. It got a rule that vocaloid songs need to have the actual group/composer as artist, not the vocaloid that has been used.
8. The Source should be left empty. Album Titles are not supposed to be written in the Source field.
9. 'Hatsune Miku' and 'Re:package' should then be added to the tags. Furthermore, you should add 'Vocaloid' and 'kz' (the composer from livetune) to the tags.
10. You can disable the Countdown in both diffs since it won't appear anyway (due to a short audio leadin time before the map starts).

1. 00:29:710 (1,2) - I would space these out. 00:28:750 (5,6,7,8,9,1,2) - currently has 1/4, 1/2 and 1/1-stacks combined which can be a bit confusing for this difficulty level. What about something like this? http://puu.sh/gcfEL/1dc56d56ac.jpg
2. 01:32:812 (9) - The SV-change is really huge so I would place a NC here to indicate that.

1. 00:44:110 (3,5) - I would recommend you to use 1.5x SV here. The current SV change seems too extreme, especially since the sliders look equal to 00:43:150 (1) except for the slidertick which many players won't notice.
2. 01:00:670 (1,1,1) - These three NCs seem unnecessary and will mess up the HP-drain, it would be better to remove them.
3. 01:02:110 (1) - Again, 1.5x SV would be more appropriate imo.
4. 01:31:612 (6) - I would add a NC here to reduce the time this combo covers a bit (3 measure, with the high HP-drain, seems a bit too much).
5. 01:48:412 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4) - I don't really get the excessive volume changes here to be honest.. The music doesn't really change its volume so there is no point imo. It comes rather surprising when suddenly some notes are a lot less loud than before.
6. 02:00:412 - I'm not too familiar with such things, but I suppose it's a storyboarded hitsound? Please remove it ;w; Since it doesn't give actual feedback to the player.
7. 02:22:492 (9) - 1.5x SV please.
8. 02:26:332 (9) - Same as above.
9. 02:31:132 (1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1) - Now these really are too many NCs and mess up the HP-drain completely. Please consider to remove them.
10. 02:41:332 (9) - 1.5x SV please.
11. 03:04:132 (1,2,3,4) - This pattern is unreadable as it is now. The pairs of circles follow different rhythm although they look exactly the same. Consider to move (2) like that? http://puu.sh/gchOv/0907ad350b.jpg Or change it in a different way.