Namki wrote:

привет, увидел тебя в модрексе, решил поделиться мнением.

[Normal]

1. 00:53:718 (3) - такое вроде даже в рц внесли, лучше избавиться от трех репитов и поставить один репит со слайдером. Как-то лучше музыку выражает тут, припев всё-таки. не нашёл такого в рц, в любом случае, даже если есть, мапа старше этого правила.
2. 02:41:479 (1) - еще вот со спиннерами там что-то опять в рц. Надо, чтоб побольше было времени после спиннера. Для нормала это где-то 2/1 для такого бпма. ок
3. 01:54:017 (4) - в предыдущем киае ты это поставил на белый тик (00:53:270 (2) - ), странности. И дальше там тоже пару таких моментов, в которых ты мапаешь под вокал, что не очень хорошо вписывается в общий ритм и структуру тбх да

[Hard]

1. 00:00:435 (1,2) - за этим есть громкие ударные (например 00:00:435 - / 00:00:584 - / 00:00:733 - и так далее), а есть глухие (например 00:01:181 - / 00:01:629 - / 00:02:076 - ) я предлагаю на глухие поставить серкл, по ритму выйдет что-то такое. это ж вводные слайдеры, куда сразу такие ритмы-то?
2. 00:05:360 (6) - вот это можно сделать слайдером потому, что есть очень сильный вокал. Сейм тут 00:12:524 (6) - . И там дальше тоже встречается такое.
3. Немного странный брейк 00:12:972 - , по мне он не очень туда вписывается. Пока оставлю
4. 01:44:912 (4) - по мне немного недостаточно там сильные звуки, чтоб делать кликабельный, мб слайдер вместо 01:44:763 (3) - , выглядит прикольно. лады
5. 02:14:315 - ну а тут ты делаешь вообще некликабельный такой звук, странно это. лады
6. 03:11:778 - / 03:11:927 - явно же инструментал, имо ты зря скипаешь это, там же такой разгон в музыке идет, грех не замапать. лады
7. 03:15:061 (3) - вот тут все 3 звука (03:15:061 - / 03:15:211 - / 03:15:360 - ) одинаковые по силе, но этот 03:15:061 - ты выделяешь как-то больше, делая на нем акцент, но там нет же ничего такого, что стоило бы выделять. Я б даже сказал, что 03:15:211 - сильнее остальных, именно его надо было выделять. вот тут ничего не понял, хс одинаковые, громкость тоже, только киай обрубил, чтоб фонтан сделать

h4d0uk3n1 wrote:

i don't care:

1. 00:12:972 - уверен, что пропускать пару тактов имеет смысл в данном случае? 00:15:658 - тут еще такие ударные, было бы круто их показать, а так просто пустота, кажется неестественным. Здесь то же 01:13:420 - ну фиг знает, иначе лишаюсь этих мини-брейков. пока не буду заполнять
2. 00:26:703 (9,10) - не очень понятно зачем тут сделан такой густой ритм отразил 10, должно быть попроще
3. 01:36:554 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - это немного.. режет глаз. это по тексту песни!
   
   Сложно сказать, что что-то не так, так как карта построена на простом принципе, и этот принцип хорошо работает

i care:

1. Так как это самая низкая сложность в мапсете, в ней дс должен быть постоянен (а аимод говорит, что здесь это не так), как и св (хотя не уверен нужно ли поправлять св в данном случае, так как его изменения практически не заметны допускается, действительно не очень заметны
2. 00:08:046 (5,2) - мне кажется они некрасиво соприкасаются а мне нравится!
3. 00:45:211 - хотелось бы чтобы интенсивная часть песни начиналась с кликабельного объекта да, согласен
4. 01:19:688 (3,4) - мне кажется такие вещи сложно читать новичкам перенес на начало след слайдера
5. 01:53:270 (3,4) - учитывая каким ритмом ты пользовался ранее, это может стать неприятным сюрпризом. Может стоит показать такой ритм ближе к началу песни, чтобы избежать проблем с прочтением? Или сделать так же, как и в прошлом припеве да
6. 02:41:479 (1,1) - рк говорит что в нормалах кд у спинеров минимум 2 бита да
7. 02:58:046 (2,3) - такой ритм хоть и сложно предугадать, но он кажется более подходящим что-то не очень в музыку, оставлю свой
   
   Было бы круто, если бы ритм было более постоянным, эта сложность, по сути, должна быть удобна для новичков, потому не стоит нагружать их внезапными решениями типа 2/3 гапов, если начал с 1/1, то пускай так дальше будет, хотя лучше оставить другие (не 1/1), но так же добавить их и в начале, чтобы они не были большим сюрпризом на контрасте с постоянными 1/1 от 1/1 кони дохнут, в 1/3 мапе это не просто уныло, это унылище. надо немного хоть разбавлять

1. 00:16:554 (1,5) - the vocals here are clearly devided as well as the instruments, so mapping them with a single slider leaves 00:17:002 - 00:17:449 - 00:19:240 - 00:19:688 - unclickable. I'd probably try to throw in more circles, this way. And when you compare this slider part with 00:23:718 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - it is quite clear that the sliders are much, much easier.
2. 01:49:688 (1,2,3,4) - I was expecting sliders to match the continuous vocals and the previous sliders. It just feels like sliders there would make more sense.
3. 03:10:733 (5,6,7) - the jump is too sudden, there is nothing that leads players into the x4.0 spaced pattern and it is inconsistent with the similar part in the other kiais.
4. 03:15:061 (3,4,1) - probably should have been spaced better to match the 1-2-3 jump pattern. example
   
   I absolutely love the way 00:38:046 (2,4) - this pattern works, by the way. Those Krisom Crosses work are a fascinating thing.

Bakari wrote:

The names do show progression, though! There is a clear difference between not caring and caring and as it matches with the lyrics it does make sense.

I guess we could pull a nice balanced difficulty spread like Caring (the one that is currrently the Easy) / Insensitive (a Normal that we could add add in) / I Don't Care (the Hard that is now in the set). Different names/concepts/spread styles may apply, but the idea is that we could keep the idea of naming and improve the balance of the difficulties that already xist.

Bakari wrote:

The names do show progression, though! There is a clear difference between not caring and caring and as it matches with the lyrics it does make sense.

Additionally, as for the spread part, I would say that the I care! difficulty is more like an Easy one, I've took some time to look into Aleks' more recent ranks and his Normals recently been looking pretty up-to-date and solid, so I'd say that you just need to take things from a different perspective?

I guess we could pull a nice balanced difficulty spread like Caring (the one that is currrently the Easy) / Insensitive (a Normal that we could add add in) / I Don't Care (the Hard that is now in the set). Different names/concepts/spread styles may apply, but the idea is that we could keep the idea of naming and improve the balance of the difficulties that already xist.

As for the Hard difficulty, it does look pretty hot, though I'd probably try to change up a couple of things

1. 00:16:554 (1,5) - the vocals here are clearly devided as well as the instruments, so mapping them with a single slider leaves 00:17:002 - 00:17:449 - 00:19:240 - 00:19:688 - unclickable. I'd probably try to throw in more circles, this way. And when you compare this slider part with 00:23:718 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - it is quite clear that the sliders are much, much easier. changed just the begining, rest sounds bad tho
2. 01:49:688 (1,2,3,4) - I was expecting sliders to match the continuous vocals and the previous sliders. It just feels like sliders there would make more sense. ok, not hard enough, got it
3. 03:10:733 (5,6,7) - the jump is too sudden, there is nothing that leads players into the x4.0 spaced pattern and it is inconsistent with the similar part in the other kiais. ok
4. 03:15:061 (3,4,1) - probably should have been spaced better to match the 1-2-3 jump pattern. example mmm, no, i like my way

1. We could use a couple of tags. For insntance, FOB, Patrick Stump .

1. The spinners in the 'I don't care' part of the song are just 1 second long. Are you sure that this would be enough for beginners to read and spin them?
2. 00:33:867 (1) - the number of reverses here can trick beginners and mislead them. Perhaps a generic 1/1 slider?
3. 01:09:837 (4,2) - this can also be a little confusing. I'd select 01:09:837 (4,2) - and ctrl+g them.
   Note: if you do so, you might wanna change 01:41:180 (4,6) - as well.
4. 02:47:897 (2,1) - this feels like a small jump, might not be appropriate for the easiest difficulty.
5. 03:14:166 (4) - if you decide to keep the previous sliders, at least split this one into two, so it's easier to read and more consistent with the previous patterns? example
   Note: 03:32:076 (5) - something similar
   
   Just a couple thing to make it more appropriate for beginners.

1. 00:52:375 (2,1,2) - doesn't really look neat to me. You might wanna avoid overlap, if you feel the same way.
2. 01:49:688 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - similar spacing was previously used for 1/3 gaps like 01:37:599 (5,6) - are you sure about spacing 1/1 circles the same way? I'd recommend just regular stacks instead.

1. 01:36:703 (2,3,4,5) - this gets me every time, I just love the idea

Bakari wrote:

Oh, hey there!

Metadata is fine

General

1. We could use a couple of tags. For insntance, FOB, Patrick Stump . np

I care!

1. The spinners in the 'I don't care' part of the song are just 1 second long. Are you sure that this would be enough for beginners to read and spin them? well, i got 300 w/o bonusues when tried to spin as a retard. enough i think
2. 00:33:867 (1) - the number of reverses here can trick beginners and mislead them. Perhaps a generic 1/1 slider?
3. 01:09:837 (4,2) - this can also be a little confusing. I'd select 01:09:837 (4,2) - and ctrl+g them. they are on the same spot, what's the point?
   Note: if you do so, you might wanna change 01:41:180 (4,6) - as well.
4. 02:47:897 (2,1) - this feels like a small jump, might not be appropriate for the easiest difficulty. ok
5. 03:14:166 (4) - if you decide to keep the previous sliders, at least split this one into two, so it's easier to read and more consistent with the previous patterns? example
   Note: 03:32:076 (5) - something similar ok
   
   Just a couple thing to make it more appropriate for beginners.

I kinda care!

1. 00:52:375 (2,1,2) - doesn't really look neat to me. You might wanna avoid overlap, if you feel the same way. kay, why not. didn't like it anyway
2. 01:49:688 (1,2,3,4,5,6) - similar spacing was previously used for 1/3 gaps like 01:37:599 (5,6) - are you sure about spacing 1/1 circles the same way? I'd recommend just regular stacks instead. simple stacks look really boring, i'd like to leave it as is

I don't!

1. 01:36:703 (2,3,4,5) - this gets me every time, I just love the idea that's disturbing, you know

Looks prettier to me! Definitely wanna give it a shot after ezek gets back to it.

ezek wrote:

check aimod and fix tags conflict pls oops, doublespace, reuploaded

01:36:703 (2,3,4,5) - what a nazi pattern on the highest diff btw it follows lyrics

Vass_Bass wrote:

we care!

Vass_Bass wrote:

we care!

UndeadCapulet wrote:

nao silly

UndeadCapulet wrote:

sis silly

Kisses wrote:

You guys missed your chance at le epic reply "I don't care" lel

ezek wrote:

uh.. they do indicate progression!

It's from a positive state to a negative state; you see, when you care about something or someone, you are positive and caring towards that, and when you don't, you can be negative and harsh. So it does make sense with "I Care!", "I don't Care!", and "I kinda Care" (as the state between caring and not caring at all). Come on, this isn't even advanced English, people.

Also, was the mapper somehow notified that there was a report on his map? I don't see any post on the thread about the map getting a report, and I don't know if he received a pm about it, so this is just a question.

Naotoshi wrote:

I posted on the thread about it, and reported it. Which he ignored

Anyway, I suggest something like "I normally care > I hardly care > I don't care" which both shows the desired progression and also includes the difficulty of the map in the name. This solves both issues.