It's funny that I actually modded this map and made the GDs before I joined the BAT, and suddenly this happened.Tess wrote:
nor the BAT who has a GD in the set
...Well let's see your mod.
See, I didn't agree with you on some of the things, but otherwise, your complaint is quite justifiable. Madoka's map is quite fun because of its jumpy nature and the designing is pretty good too, but I guess there are things (mostly the flow and overjumps) that can still be improved.Tess wrote:
Somebody linked me this map and I honestly don't see why everybody is going "rank pls" or even why this is bubbled or has even been considered for bubbling at all. First of all, the offset is wrong. Second of all there are some pretty big playability issues - and that's only in the Insane. I modded the Insane for you but seriously, CDFA, you should've seen these things before bubbling. Some of these mods may just be opinions and definitely not everything I point out is unrankable, but I think it's all at least something you should take a look at. The timing is definitely unrankable though, and I believe the overmapping is too.General
- Inconsistencies in kiai times between all diffs, not sure if this is on purpose or not but it's better not to do this in my opinion Huh? I just redownloaded the maps and actually checked the diffs one by one. I'm pretty sure the kiai time is consistent in every diff.
- Correct offset is 417 Okay, I agree with this.
Insane The kiai is just a continuation of the previous angle issues in the map + overly large uneven jump spam. Now that I review it again, I'll agree with you on this too, especially on the flow part.
- 00:02:261 (2) - Ctrl + G flows better, and then you should ctrl + g 00:02:936 (3) - as well and turn 00:03:610 (4) - into two circles - one stacked on top of the sliderhead of 00:01:756 (1) - , and the other on top of 00:04:284 (1) - like this Nope; the flow would be awkward actually due to the angle and the movement need to move from (1)'s tail to (2)'s head if you reverse (2). The current placement actually flows nicer.
- 00:04:958 (3,4,5) - Same as the last pattern ^
- 00:07:149 (1) - Sliderend is overmapped, why don't you just stack one on top of 00:06:643 (6) - ?(if you applied my previous suggestion) I don't really agree with this; there's a clear sign that the instrument that is played at 00:07:158 (note: I use 417 as the offset right now) ends on the tail, and thus it fits. But yeah, a little volume decrease would be nice I guess.
- 00:07:823 (2) - And then you should adjust this too, maybe place it where 00:06:306 (5) - is (if you applied the previous suggestions) Not gonna comment on this...
- 00:08:160 (3) - Overmapped Gotta agree on this one.
- 00:12:205 (1) - This is really awkward, angle the sliderhead downwards (I'd personally blanket it around 00:11:868 (1) - but that's up to you) ^
- 00:12:542 (1) - Why is this jump so large? I understand that you want a jump there but that's way too huge for a song this calm I partially disagree. The song is calm here, yes, but the instrument is relatively strong. I'd reduce the distance by, like, 1/3 of the current spacing I guess.
- 00:16:924 (4) - Overmapped Agree on this.
- 00:17:936 (4) - Bad blanket ^
- 00:20:969 (1,2,3) - The angle of this jump is very awkward I don't think this is awkward at all. It's pretty nice to play, at least for me.
- 00:21:643 (1,2,3,4,1) - This has a crescendo in the song, why would you make such a large jump at such an angle that goes downwards? While I don't think this is a problem, I do agree that it'd be nice to make the angle after the jump upward or just make the stream have an accelerated spacing or something like that.
- 00:22:486 (4) - This is both uncomfortable to play and hard to read I... don't think so. Really, I can't see why.
- 00:23:329 (1) - Once again an overly large jump at a tricky angle with a slider angling it in an even more awkward direction Will agree on this (and for 00:22:664 (1,2,3,4,1) in its entirety).
- 00:24:509 (6) - Why is this jump so big? This section is calm This is okay-ish to emphasize the vocal, but yeah, definitely a little too large.
- 00:25:014 (7) - This is playable but it's not nice, why do you keep making these sharp back-forth jump-slider patterns? I'll agree on this (and 00:25:192 should have a circle instead of a slider's tail IMO).
- 00:25:351 (8) - It works here since there's a curve. A backwards jump like this is okay.
- 00:25:351 (8,1,2) - Why isn't this a triangle pattern? You angle the flow upwards and then go to the right for no reason at all Agree on this. This level of linearity makes an awkward flow.
- 00:26:700 (5) - Another awkward jump-slider Where's the awkwardness? It actually goes well with the curving of 00:26:034 (3,4), even though it can seem weird at first glance.
- 00:27:037 (6,7) - This jump isn't nice to play Will agree; definitely would be better with something like this, although admittedly it might feel a little too linear.
- 00:27:879 (1,2,3) - Place (1) lower on the grid, then ctrl + g (2) and fix the pattern after it so the jump isn't so huge I do understand the concern about how the jump from (1) to (2)'s head might be pretty far, but like 00:02:261 (2), it actually makes the flow a little broken due to the movement you need to hit the objects.
- 00:29:228 (5,6) - This is playable but, once again, awkward, and the blanket isn't even right Agree on this; definitely could have something more flowy.
- 00:30:576 (5) - Another imperfect blanket This one looks perfectly fine to me.
- 00:32:093 (3,4) - What you must realize with patterns like these is that due to slider leniency, the player won't be making inverse "N" movements with their cursor - they'll leave the slider halfway through, causing for a shapeless, sloppy and unpleasant movement that isn't all that enjoyable to play at all I played this pattern and actually quite enjoyed the movement that I need to pull off to hit these sliders... I don't know, might be just me.
- 00:33:272 (4,5) - Why would you go back here? You start with a triangular flow and then completely kill it by unintuitively jumping back. This would cause a lot of players (especially DT players) to miss because of the unbalanced flow. Agree on this.
- 00:33:610 (6,7,8) - The followup isn't much better either, to be honest. Your flow feels very random and it's like you only tried to make your map look good but not play well. ^
- 00:35:801 (6,7,1,2) - This has curves that are too sharp for the song - it's a calm song and your map is very hectic and all over the place.The (1,2) at the end of that pattern also completely ruin whatever you were creating with (6,7). ^
- 00:36:812 (2,3) - Angle too sharp for the music Not too sure on this... The music is a little stronger here, so stuff like this should be okay. This one looks forced though, I must say.
- 00:37:318 (3,4) - This jump doesn't really make sense Agree.
- 00:49:621 (4,5,1) - This is unintuitive, have you tried playing this? It really doesn't feel right for me. Maybe it's just you then? No, I mean, I actually enjoyed playing this pattern.
- 00:50:632 (2,3,4) - Again with the sharp back and forth jumps. You could've tried something like this. I agree, although reworking (5) so it'll allow a more natural cursor movement from (4) will be needed. Not to say that's a bad and horrible thing to do though.
- 00:52:655 (4) - Awkward and you completely ruined a potential star shape here I don't see why is this awkward. This fits the song quite nicely, actually. I'll have to say that the flow at 00:52:664 (4,5) is bad and can be reworked, though. (I'm not sure how did I let this pass...)
- 00:53:160 (6,7) - This pattern is a bit unintuitive to play. You could at least ctrl + G (7). Considering the movement you need for 00:52:664 (4,5), I agree on this.
- 00:54:340 (1) - Another unnecessarily sharp and tricky angle Yep; definitely would be better if (1) was placed on the left side of 00:54:181 (4) and not the right.
- 00:55:520 (1) - Remove NC Agree.
- 00:55:688 (2) - Add NC ^
- 00:58:216 (1,2,3) - This is where you should increase the spacing, really. The spacing is too large in the whole map, and then you keep it even when the music intensifies. It doesn't really make sense. ^
- 00:58:891 (1,2,3) - This overlaps badly with the previous notes and is unintuitive. Try this Unintuitive in terms of flow, I agree. (3) can be either placed on the upper-left or lower-right of (2). I can't see why are you complaining about the overlaps though. There are no overlaps while playing.
- 00:59:396 (4,5) - You have a place where anti-jumps would fit and you keep them just as intense as the previous ones. Agree on this.
- 01:00:407 (1,2,3,4) - This is great, and then you pretty much kill it with 01:01:081 (1,2,3,4) - . The second (1,2,3,4) is a descendo, you need to accentuate it - not by increasing the spacing and making the angles more awkward, but by slightly altering the previous pattern so that everything fits and transitions smoothly into the kiai. ^
- 01:02:093 (1) - This has no reason to be NC'd. ^
- 01:02:093 (2,1) - Awkward jump Taking account of 01:02:439 (1,2)'s movement, I'll agree on this.
I think the Insane diff isn't as horrible as what you have described (don't think I can say the same about the kiai time, but at least it isn't outright terrible and crappy, I believe), but okay, there is still a room for more improvement.
Thanks for the slap on the face, by the way. I learned quite a bit today
I will leave what happens next to Madoka and those who want to help in improving the map because I don't really think there's much more I can do for this other than giving my two cents. See you guys later, I suppose?